Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:—

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Republic of Austria of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Italian Republic of the protocol set out in the Schedule to the order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before your House, an order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

PETITION

Amusement Arcades

Mr. Lomas: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 3,340 constituents of the County Borough of Huddersfield and the Urban District of Kirkburton, who are concerned about the growth of amusement arcades and the urgent need for greater control.
The Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government do three things:
One, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power in every instance to approve or reject any application for the establishment of an amusement arcade or centre;
Two, to introduce legislation to prohibit the admission of young persons under school leaving age to amusement arcades or amusement centres, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian;
Three, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power to impose conditions on amusement arcades and centres on such matters as the opening hours, and the number and types of machines therein.
The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — POWER

Natural Gas

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Power what percentage of the country has now been converted to natural gas; and what is the provisional date for the completion of this operation.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the progress of the natural gas conversion programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): About 5 per cent. of consumers


have now had their appliances converted. The programme is planned to be completed by 1977–78. There was some delay last year in the planned rate of build-up, but the gas industry is confident that the programme will be completed in this period.

Mr. Smith: Is the Ministry satisfied that the standard of conversion, which left so much to be desired in the first place, is now much improved? Is it still confident that natural gas is more efficient and effective than the old variety?

Mr. Freeson: On the first point, it would he wrong to generalise, as I think I have said to the hon. Gentleman before. There was a percentage of call-back and complaints. This is now reducing. I believe that the figure last year was 25 per cent. call-back, and it is now down to 22 per cent. I have reason to believe that it will continue in that direction.

Mr. Lane: I appreciate the helpfulness of the Chairman of the Eastern Gas Board and his staff, both in the conversion programme and in dealing with complaints, but is the Minister aware that there is great concern among many consumers about the increases in gas bills since conversion? Would he not agree that if natural gas is to be nationally acceptable, the confusion about charges must be cleared up urgently?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, Sir, and the confusion about charges would be helped it hon. Gentlemen were to spread the facts a little more often. There has been quite a number of Written Questions on the subject, in reply to which we have provided first-class information. Further information has been made available, and even more could be made available by the gas boards concerned, which could explain fully, as I am prepared to explain, the reasons for the increased gas bills for the consumption earlier this year.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister consider this point yet again? The figures he has given in Parliamentary Answers in no way explain some of the major increases, and unless this matter is explained to consumers the success of conversion will be in doubt. We all want it to succeed, and the Minister has a duty here.

Mr. Freeson: And so have hon. Members. To some extent there is a stirring up of difficulty by hon. Members who are not prepared to make a little more effort in spreading full information.

An Hon. Member: That is a generalised slur.

Mr. Freeson: It is not a generalised slur. I have correspondence to prove this. We and the boards have been quite prepared to explain the position. If hon. Gentlemen wish to put down Questions, they will get factual Answers, and some of the Answers have explained the position to date.

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Minister of Power (1) when he expects North Sea gas to be generally available in Scotland;
(2) what proportion of the gas supply in Scotland will be from sources other than North Sea gas once this is generally available to customers of the Scottish Gas Board.

Mr. Freeson: The trunk line should reach into Scotland in the spring of 1970. On present plans, one-quarter of the Board's customers will receive natural gas direct by 1974. The Board hopes to convert all except the outlying areas.

Sir J. Gilmour: Since Scottish gas prices are considerably above prices in England, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether, as a result of this change, the price of gas in Scotland will come down to the same level as that in England?

Mr. Freeson: The bulk supply price or tariff for natural gas will be on a uniform basis throughout the country, but there will still be the influence of local costs in addition which will be decided by the boards.

Mr. Ashton: Can my hon. Friend say if, by the dates he mentioned, there will be introduced a national hydrocarbon corporation to control the marketing and leasing of North Sea gas?

Mr. Freeson: That is a different question.

Mr. Ashton: But a good one.

Mr. Freeson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important issue, and


I assure him that my right hon. Friend is studying it closely.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Power how many complaints the West Midlands Gas Board has received from consumers about increased gas bills, following conversion to natural gas.

Mr. Freeson: I am informed that, since conversion started last year, about 3 per cent. of the 75,000 consumers so far converted to natural gas have raised complaints.

Mr. Smith: However much the hon. Gentleman and the gas board contend that natural gas does not cost the consumer more, is he aware that hundreds of my constituents know from personal experience that it does cost more? If the hon. Gentleman is right, will he explain why so many people are apparently labouring under such a serious misapprehension?

Mr. Freeson: One reason arises from what I said earlier; that hon. Members as well as Ministers and the industry have a responsibility in this matter. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that natural gas means higher costs for the consumer.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend that the proposition which he propounds—that it is the Opposition's job to put forward Governmental or Gas Council policy—is absolutely incorrect?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is talking a piece of nonsense. I made no such suggestion. I said, and I repeat, that there is a responsibility on hon. Members as well as on Ministers and the industry to spread the facts and not to spread distortions.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter which I sent to his Department a month ago about 18 of my constituents at Congleton whose gas bills for natural gas have gone up by between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent.? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about these alarming increases?

Mr. Freeson: It would take a considerable time—I would be prepared to do so on a siutable occasion or perhaps by correspondence—to explain all the factors that have given rise in certain instances

to rising bills as a result of consumption earlier this year. However, these factors had nothing whatever to do with natural gas conversions.

Electricity Supply Industry (Reorganisation)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement about the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power if he is now able to make a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): I made a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry last Friday.—[Vol. 787, c. 1091.]

Sir J. Eden: Arising from that statement, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Central Electricity Generating Board will still be much the dominant force and major spending element in the new Authority? As such, does not he agree that there would have been some greater advantage from having more than one generating authority? Why does he not go for that at this stage? Will he say something about cross-posting between boards? Would not he agree that there are so many questions still to be answered arising from his statement that a White Paper would be helpful?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer questions.

Mr. Mason: I have not closed my mind to the possibility of issuing a White Paper. I hope that cross-posting will be encouraged. The Central Electricity Generating Board will be the biggest spender, but I think that the Authority, given its new powers, will be able to control the spending, and because it will have power over the capital investment programme of the industry as a whole. I shall be better advised.

Mr. Palmer: When does my right hon. Friend hope to bring the legislation forward?

Mr. Mason: Next Session, I hope.

New Mines

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power how many coal pits or mines were


sunk post-war in Scotland, England and Wales; and what are the capital charges for each country.

Mr. Freeson: Major sinkings have been: Scotland 14, England 15 and Wales 6, costing respectively £75 million, £91 million and £30 million. Capital charges on colliery activities for the financial year ended March, 1968, were: Scotland £8 million, England £59 million, Wales £9 million.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although we in Scotland appreciate the new capital investment that has been made, there is a feeling and belief that, with the operation of capital charges and the like, this is the thinking and motive behind the operation of differential coal price policy, which is grossly to the disadvantage of Scotland?

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's observations. The position is that there has been a balance, if anything, in favour of Scotland in capital investment in the industry—14 sinkings in Scotland, 15 in England and 6 in Wales. Pricing policy reflects, as far as possible, the costs of production in the different areas concerned.

Energy Production (Ownership)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power, in terms of energy produced in Scotland, England and Wales, what are the percentages in these three countries that are produced, publicly owned and privately.

Mr. Freeson: Excluding oil which is nearly all imported, the public sector is responsible, at least in part, for most of the energy produced in Britain. Complex exchanges of energy between the public and private sectors make it difficult to give percentages in answer to the Question as it is worded. In any case the answers can vary widely according to the system of measurement adopted.

Mr. Eadie: Is it the Minister's intention to encourage more new private enterprise in energy supplies, bearing in mind that the nation has invested millions of pounds to ensure adequate energy capacity?

Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend is referring to the position with regard to investment in private generating capacity, this is a subject we look at regularly. So far as encouraging investment is concerned; it is our responsibility to ensure sound investment in the public energy industries.

Electricity Generating Capacity

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what additional capacity for electricity generation he proposes to authorise in the current year.

Mr. Mason: I have not yet completed my review of the current investment programmes of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and am unable to anticipate its outcome.

Mr. Osborn: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what has been approved so far this year? Can he indicate the capacity he will be approving, bearing in mind that electrical plant manufacturers want sustained orders and he has planned 66,000 megawatts, which is an increase of 20,000 megawatts over the next five to six years—that is, an annual demand for 3,000–4,000 megawatts? Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing?

Mr. Mason: No new stations have been approved this year. I am aware of the difficulties of the power plant manufacturers but that is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the electricity industry can provide capacity according to its own estimate of the rate of national growth rather than the estimate of the Department of Economic Affairs, which has proved slightly wrong in the past?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should keep his tongue in his cheek when talking of estimated demand. There is surplus generating capacity at the moment because of the Conservative Government's bad estimating. Too many stations were built too quickly.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power what was the percentage margin of electricity capacity last winter over average cold spell conditions and over maximum demand, respectively.

Mr. Freeson: About 18 per cent. in each case.

Sir J. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman try to help the House by clearing up some of the confusion to which I frankly admit? A number of different figures have been given by different Ministers. For example, can he explain what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the margin over peak demand was 25 per cent.? What contribution to success has the Winter Emergency Committee made?

Mr. Freeson: I would have to have notice of the reference to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Winter Emergency Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, reviews all the factors relating to winter conditions annually and it continues in that job.

Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power why he has not yet published financial targets for the nationalised industries for which he is responsible; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: The White Paper on the Financial and Economic Objectives of Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3437) indicates the relevant criteria but their application has posed difficult problems. The over-riding considerations are that we get the right answers and that the industries should be properly consulted. All this has taken longer than I had hoped.

Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as we will not have a statement now, it means that we will not be able to have Parliamentary inquiry into the financial target for next year until 55 per cent. of the year is past? How can he possibly sustain the view that the chairmen of the nationalised industries know what the eventual target will be already but that he will not tell the House at the moment? This is despicable.

Mr. Mason: The seething indignation on the hon. Gentleman's face does not disturb me. The chairmen are being closely consulted. But we have not finalised what the objective shall be. Until we do, I cannot inform the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his undertaking in Committee on the Iron and Steel Act to give financial directions to the B.S.C. at the earliest opportunity? When can we expect him to do so?

Mr. Mason: I did give that undertaking but I have not yet concluded my talks with the Corporation.

Nationalised Industries (New Investment)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, at what times, and with whom, on the test rate of discount applied to new investment by the nationalised industries.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the test rate of discount to be applied to new investment by the fuel and power nationalised industries.

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Power what test rate of discount is currently applied to new investment in the fuel and power industries.

Mr. Freeson: Cmnd. 3437 announced that nationalised industries—other than the B.S.C.—should use a test discount rate of 8 per cent. The nationalised fuel industries were consulted in the preparation of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury informed the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 8th July, [Vol. 786, c. 1139] the rate is at present being reviewed, and the House will be informed of the result.
The rate for the B.S.C., which is still under consideration, will take account of the fact that unlike other nationalised industries, it receives investment grants.

Mr. Lane: As it is now well over a year since Government witnesses before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries implied that the 8 per cent. figure was out of date, and as apparently we are not to have a chance before the autumn now, is not this an intolerable delay by a Government who claim to be dynamic and modernising?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the views expressed with regard to reviewing the position of the discount rate in relation


to higher interest rates and it is one of the factors that will be taken into account.

Mr. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial rates are well above this figure? Is he further aware that, since the Treasury has raised this issue, some £1,500 million worth of investment has been carried out? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any time for the revised target?

Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to give information to the House at present, but the matter is the subject of a review. All the points made by the hon. Gentlemen will be taken into account.

Mr. Ridley: Since the Treasury has just issued a stock with a 9 per cent. coupon, will the hon. Gentleman bring to its notice the fact that it is high time that this discount rate was raised? When will he make an announcement? He has been talking about it all summer.

Mr. Freeson: If I were able to tell the House when I could make an announcement I would be able to give the answer today. I will draw the Treasury's attention to the hon. Gentleman's observations.

National Coal Board (Borrowing)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power what is the sum of extra borrowing taken up by the National Coal Board since the passing of the 1967 Coal Industry Act for additional coal-burn by the gas and electricity industries.

Mr. Mason: No additional borrowing has been entailed.

Mr. Emery: Does this mean that it will not be essential for the National Coal Board to add any further in borrowing to the £45 million allowed under the Act for the further coal-burn?

Mr. Mason: The Question is about extra borrowing. None has been involved. The National Coal Board is allowed up to the £45 million limit in the four years up to the end of 1969–71. I am not visualising anything beyond that at the moment.

Coal Mining (Productivity)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Power how the growth of coalmining productivity in the first half

of 1969 compares with that achieved in the corresponding periods of the years 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Mason: Productivity in the first half of 1969 was 44·2 cwt. per manshift, 6·6 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1968. The comparable increases in 1968 and 1967 were 9·1 per cent. and 3·0 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the impetus towards greater production continue? Do not the achievements of the men working in the nationalised coal mining industry warrant greater help from the Government? Will the Government further consider that industry when deciding the fuel to be used by future power stations?

Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have given much financial aid to the coal mining industry, totting up to about £550 million, while we have been in office. The Tories closed 350 pits and 250,000 men left the industry while the Tories were in office and the Tories did not give a penny to the miners or the Board. There has been a slight falling off of output per man shift this year, but I hope that it will pick up later. It may be due to higher recruitment in recent months.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the £2,000 million investment in the coal mining and ancillary industries during the 13 years of Tory rule the reason for the great increase in productivity in coal mines today?

Mr. Mason: No. If we had not nationalised the industry and had allowed the anarchy of the market place of Tory rule to continue, 200 pits would not be in production today.

Ore Terminals and Steel Works (Siting)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, or proposes to have, with the steel industry on the present world trend towards larger ore-carriers requiring deep water and its likely effects upon the siting of future ore terminals and steel works.

Mr. Mason: The size of ore carriers and the need for deep water approaches are amongst the factors which the British


Steel Corporation and the Government will continue to take into account in their studies on ore terminals.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the deepest water around the shores of Britain is in the Firth of Clyde and that if the present trend of building larger and larger ships continues, that fact will be of considerable help to the British steel industry?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The Metra-Weddell Report has drawn attention to the natural advantages of the Clyde and they will undoubtedly be borne in mind by the British Steel Corporation in the forthcoming study which it is to undertake in conjunction with the Clyde Port Authority.

Mr. Roy Hughes: In his consultations with the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the proposed Uskmouth iron ore terminal in South Wales is kept under constant review and that the proposal is not put into cold storage? In the meanwhile, will he seek agreement with the British Transport Docks Board to modernise the existing iron-ore handling facilities at Newport Docks as a temporary measure?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members who have constituency interests for drawing these matters to my attention. I will convey what they have said to the B.S.C.

Sir J. Gilmour: What ports and estuaries, apart from the Clyde, are available to take the largest projected ore carriers without dredging?

Mr. Mason: Port Talbot will be able to take 100,000-tonners quite soon and eventually 150,000-tonners and Redcar is now being developed to take 100,000-tonners.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities on the Clyde will not help Summers Steel Works on Mersey? Is it not essential that there should be a berth on Mersey to cater for the needs of Summers Steel Works? Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the steel industry in this connection?

Mr. Mason: As I hinted, hon. Members who have small ports who want them to be large ports adjacent to steel works would best serve their interests by writing to the B.S.C. instead of question-

ing me at length on what is a Scottish demand for a major ore terminal.

North Thames Gas Board (Private Contractors)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the North Thames Gas Board to cease using private contractors on work in connection with the overhaul of new re-forming plants so long as craftsmen employed by the Board and capable of doing the same work are being declared redundant, and that such work should be done, wherever possible, by the Board's own employees.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Board, and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Driberg: If the Minister has no responsibility in this matter, why did the Table accept this Question? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Table erred? That is unthinkable. Is he aware of the strong concern and anger felt at the Beckton gas works and elsewhere at this unfair and uneconomic practice?

Mr. Freeson: I think that the Question was accepted as a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Driberg: No.

Mr. Freeson: The Table Office is not responsible for the administration of the gas industry.
The issue is essentially a managerial matter. Channels are available for complaints about managerial decisions of this kind to be taken up by the men concerned, and I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for the Minister.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Am I not right in suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if the Table accepts a Question, the Minister has some responsibility or the Question would not have been accepted in the first instance?

Mr. Speaker: A Minister may disown responsibility even after a Question has been tabled. He may reply in whatever way he likes.

Mr. Ridley: Are the contractors' men employed by the gas boards to have selective employment tax paid in respect of them, unlike the private contractors' men for whom it has to be paid, in line with the decision about gas showrooms?

Mr. Freeson: That is another matter of detail which I suggest the hon. Gentleman takes up with the board in question.

Coking Coal (Scotland)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his inquiry into the availability in Scotland of coking coal suitable for the steel industry and into the economic advantages or disadvantages of using local deposits or transporting such coal from elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: This is being examined by the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Campbell: As there are at least three nationalised industries concerned with this problem, will the Government ensure that the study of the whole problem continues in order to find the best solution in the long term?

Mr. Mason: Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he phrases questions. There is no general shortage of coking coal in Scotland and the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are now carrying out a number of blending experiments to see whether they can find a wider range of coals which will satisfy the Corporation's requirements.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the war a pit was sunk in Scotland exclusively to exploit seams of coking coal, but was subsequently abandoned because the steel industry then thought that there would be no demand for it? What will my right hon. Friend do to investigate this?

Mr. Mason: To which pit does my hon. Friend refer?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hooley to ask the next Question.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order. Is it in order for my right hon. Friend to pose a question to me in answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to direct Ministers to answer Questions in the way hon. Members would like.

Mr. Eadie: It was Airth.

National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation (Regional Policy)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in his consultations with the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation on aspects of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: Discussions continue at various levels to ensure the fullest exchange of ideas and information and the best use of both.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently discussed with the two chairmen their constructive ideas for assisting regional policy.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am glad to know that these discussions are going on. What specific measures of support for regional policy have these two industries proposed?

Mr. Mason: The British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are to use the influence of their organisation to support Government measures to attract industry to areas which might be hit by coalfield and steel plant closures. The Corporation is to appoint a social policy adviser purposely to deal with these problems and to help particularly in areas where steel plants may be closing down after there have been problems with coal mines.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us in this regional context what is to be done to help the Tyne now that it has been decided to take ore shipments from the Tyne and to transfer them to Tees-side? There is far too much talk; we never hear about action.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady has risen too late. The point she raises was answered two Questions ago.
The answer to her question about regional policy is that last year we spent £260 million on aid to the development areas, a strong contrast to what the Tories managed when they were in power.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have in the past urged hon. Members to, if possible, raise points of order at the end of Question Time. Mr. Swain.

Dame Irene Ward: But would the Minister—

Mr. Swain: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Lady to put a question to my right hon. Friend. Has he forgotten, or is he still considering, implementing paragraphs 58 to 62 of the 1968 T.U.C. policy White Paper referring to regional policies where rationalisation of coal and steel is taking place?

Mr. Mason: I cannot call to mind the precise paragraphs to which my hon Friend refers, but if he will table a Question on the subject or see me about it after Question Time or on another occasion I will gladly discuss the matter with him.

Coal Output (Industrial Disputes)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Power how much coal output was lost last year as a result of industrial disputes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: About 329,000 tons. This is one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total output, and to maintain good relations to this degree is a remarkable achievement of which the coal industry as a whole can be justifiably proud.

Mr. Woof: To what degree have industrial relations between the National Coal Board and the Durham miners been instrumental in guaranteeing continuity of coal production?

Mr. Mason: Although the Durham coalfield has suffered quite harshly from pit closures in the last two years, not one ounce of coal has been lost through industrial stoppages during that time, which is a fantastic achievement.

Coal Supplies (Consumption and Exports)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Power how much coal he estimates will be used this year in the United Kingdom; how much he estimates will be exported; and how the figures compare with 1968 and 1967, respectively.

Mr. Mason: In 1967, inland consumption was 163·9 million tons and exports 1·9 million tons. The corresponding figures for 1968 were 164·4 million tons and 2·7 million tons. For this year home demand may be slightly lower and exports higher.

Mr. Woof: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the demand for coal has been halted, at least temporarily? Would he further agree that this is the time for him to consider reviewing the estimates for coal production in the 'seventies?

Mr. Mason: There has certainly been a levelling off between supply and demand and this is encouraging for the mining industry. I am now considering what aid, if any, and to what extent, should be given to the industry after March, 1971.

Mr. Swain: Will not this levelling off—I agree that sales are now equalling output—have a disastrous effect in the near future, with 40 pits being closed this year, with an average of 1,000 men each, compared with 70 last year, with an average of 500 men each?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is quite wrong. It so happens that in the first three months of this financial year only seven pits were closed.

Total Energy and District Heating Schemes

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the arrangements within his Department to keep in touch with overseas developments in district heating and total energy schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: We fully recognise the potential importance of total energy and district heating schemes and take steps to keep in touch with overseas experience as well as information in the United Kingdom. As an example, I have visited Denmark and Sweden to inspect and discuss a number of such schemes. In addition, there is the normal collection of information in the Department, and my right hon. Friend and I hope to attend an international conference on total energy and district heating in London next April.

Mr. Gregory: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him if he is really satisfied with the progress that we have made? Should not we be doing more to match the performance of the Scandinavians in this sphere?

Mr. Freeson: I am certainly not satisfied with the progress that we have made and I believe that there is considerable scope for enlarging total energy and district heating schemes. It is correct to say that the Scandinavians and other Western European countries are ahead of us in this matter.

Mr. Palmer: Has his Department any objection to electricity boards proposing schemes for total energy arrangements?

Mr. Freeson: We have no objection in principle. These schemes would have to be considered, as they are submitted, by the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B. and the Department. I have very recently had discussions with representatives of the Electricity Council, and this point was considered.

Electricity (National Control Centre)

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Power why he gave his consent to the Central Electricity Generating Board to establish a new national control centre less than 10 years after the completion of the present centre; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: The present national control centre was built in 1961 and is reaching the limit of its capability. The growth of the power system has led to a need for more advanced information display facilities to assist continuous surveillance of operating conditions on the system. This need will be met by the C.E.G.B's. new national control centre which, when completed, will be one of the most up to date in the world.

Mr. Gregory: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that a British computer will be used at this new centre? Will the centre be open for viewing by potential foreign buyers?

Mr. Mason: I understand that two British Ferranti Argus 500 computers will be used in the new centre. The C.E.G.B. will be only too pleased to demonstrate the operation and performance to potential purchasers.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What has been the cost of the new centre? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the old centre when it becomes redundant?

Mr. Mason: The cost has been £1·8 million. The new centre has been built within the old one.

Non-toxic Gas Supplies (Scotland)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power what progress is being made in providing adequate supplies of non-toxic gas to Scottish consumers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: I am informed by the Scottish Gas Board that with the exception of certain smaller plants outside the main grids the average toxic content of gas in the area has been reduced from 24 per cent. in 1960 to approximately 6 per cent. now.

Mr. Dempsey: That is very good progress, but would my hon. Friend bear in mind that Scotland has many old properties with dilapidated gas piping which frequently results in leaks and fatal accidents? Would he ask the authorities to do their best to complete the job?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the sad accident which I believe gave rise to the Question. We shall convey the representations which have been made today to the board concerned, but I have every confidence it is doing the job well.

National Coal Board (Scotland)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power what manpower savings have been achieved by the changes made by his department in the organisation in the National Coal Board in Scotland.

Mr. Mason: The reorganisation was the responsibility of the National Coal Board and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: Has contraction on the office side of the Coal Board kept pace with the contraction of the collieries?

Mr. Mason: That is a matter for the Board. But no doubt my hon. Friend recognises that in 1967 the Scottish Division was disbanded and the five areas were reduced to two—North Scotland and


South Scotland. Consequently great savings must have been made.

Reserve Collieries

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power how many collieries are currently not producing coal, but are being held in reserve in the event of an upsurge in coal demand, in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively.

Mr. Mason: One, in Yorkshire.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Robens told a colleague and I that another colliery in Fife was being held in reserve and that in the event of a rise in the coal market it would be reopened? Can he give an assurance that the Coal Board is satisfied that the manpower will be available to man the pits in the event of an upsurge in demand for coal?

Mr. Mason: No. The Michael Colliery is closed and it would be very costly to reopen it. It has lost its labour force. Even an indication that it might be reopened would undermine the efforts of the Government and the local authority to bring new alternative industry to the area. It would not be right to raise hopes that it might be reopened.

Steel Bars (Price)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect on exports and employment of the decision by the British Steel Corporation to increase the price of steel bars by 24 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: The product my hon. Friend has in mind is a very specialised type of bar with a limited sale. I have no reason to believe that the increase in its price will have any general economic effect.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the Scottish Region of British Railways gave a contract to an Italian concern to build a steamer and that one of the reasons for it was that Italian steel is 10 per cent. cheaper than ours? If steel bars are increased by this amount, will it not seriously affect the competitiveness of British steel?

Mr. Mason: I am not aware of the comparison which my hon. Friend makes.
This is a special product. It has a very limited sale. It is technically difficult to make. There are 2,500 tons made a year. I know that the firm concerned is in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have asked the British Steel Corporation to contact my hon. Friend.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not this a general problem? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I tackled him about steel prices a couple of months ago he said that the average increase was about 9 per cent., whereas in this instance it is 24 per cent., which represents an invitation to continental producers to flood our market with foreign steel to the detriment of British steel?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is responsible for ridiculous exaggerations. This is a very special type of product of which only 2,500 tons are made out of a total production in Britain of about 26 or 27 million tons.

Longannet Power Station, Fife (Coal Supplies)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that supplies of coal to the Longannet Power Station in Fife will be adequate when the station is in full production in 1973; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: I am informed by the National Coal Board that supplies will be adequate.

Continental Shelf (Production Licences)

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965.

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Power whether he will undertake to make a statement to the House on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965 before coming to any decision.

Mr. Mason: I hope to be able to make a statement on licensing policy before the House rises. Areas to be surrendered under licences awarded in 1964 and 1965


will not become available for relicensing until the autumn of next year.

Mr. Alison: Is the Minister aware that the rather sneering remarks which he made in a recent speech about abortive expenditure by the exploration companies has caused widespread offence to the exploration industry? When will he make a statement about the abortive expenditure by the Americans in getting to the moon?

Mr. Mason: I am not aware of any sneering remarks about abortive expenditure on the exploitation of North Sea gas. In fact, we are very grateful that the international oil companies have taken a very keen interest in taking up licences and working out their work programme within the six years in which they were required to do it before giving up 50 per cent. of their blocks. I am not aware of the sneering comments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir J. Eden: Was not the right hon. Gentleman reported in the Northern Echo of 28th June as having said that £40 million of the money spent in exploration was wasted? It is the use of the word "wasted" which is regarded as being highly offensive in this high risk area.

Mr. Mason: I cannot make a serious reply without looking at the reference. This is not "wasted" in the sense that the hon. Gentleman uses the word. There is a high risk in the North Sea, which is a very hazardous area for drilling operations. Consequently a lot of dry holes can be drilled without any return. Money may be wasted in that sense, but this is a high risk venture.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the results of the inter-departmental investigation into the control of environmental pollution.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on 26th June, this has recently been discussed by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology and the Government are now

considering the matter in the light of the Council's advice.—[Vol. 785, c. 302.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science that legislation should be introduced to the effect that before any chemical or insecticide is released on the market a long-term analysis of the likely effects should be made?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the proposal to my attention. The Government investigation will cover the co-ordination of measures for controlling environmental pollutants, both those which are known and potential ones, as a result of commercial or other research. Different Departments will be responsible for looking at the possible effects of new materials used in medicine, veterinary medicine, pest control and other fields where there is potential danger.

Dr. Winstanley: Is it not apparent that man excels all other animals in his ability to foul his nest and that unless we take positive steps our descendants will be poisoned with pollutants, choked by fumes and deafened by noise before finally being smothered under mountains of waste? Is it not time that we established a Department to deal with this very important subject?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman has missed out one or two potential dangers. All these questions with regard to the marine environment, rivers and the atmosphere are being studied by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology.

PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President Nixon to London for conversations either before or after his visit to Rumania.

Mr. Luard: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an opportunity to consult with President Nixon on matters concerning the forthcoming discussions between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on strategic missiles.

The Prime Minister: It was announced last week that I shall be having an informal talk with President Nixon on 3rd August when he makes a brief stop n Britain on his way home. There is no formal agenda for the talks.
On strategic arms limitation, intensive consultations have been under way in the North Atlantic Council about the possible bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, and our views have been made known.

Mr. Ridsdale: When the Prime Minister meets the American President, will he congratulate him, not only on the magnificent courage of the American spacemen, but on the great achievements of American technology? To make up for our own shortcomings, will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and establish a Select Committee on Defence?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the supplementary question, the serious part, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that I took the opportunity on the Atlantic telephone yesterday when President Nixon phoned Downing Street to express to him exactly the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which indeed I had done on three American television networks the night before. I am sure that the whole House would endorse the words of congratulations of the hon. Gentleman and those which have poured out from this country to the United States to the astronauts and on the technological achievement and planning which underlay it.
On the second part of the supplementary question, I am not aware that anyone has suggested that this country, under this or a previous Government, should have entered the moon race, with all the resources involved. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of our very high degree of technological and scientific advance in the past three or four years.

Mr. Luard: Regarding the strategic arms limitation talks, is it not a fact that Europe has important interests in this field which are by no means identical with those of the United States? Has not this country, as the only country

with a viable strategic missile capacity, a particular right to be heard in this respect? Therefore, is it not important that we should remain in very close touch with the United States throughout these talks?

The Prime Minister: It is a fact that Europe has an interest in these talks, which may not be exactly the same as that of the United States. For that reason, the United States and her European allies have been discussing all aspects of this problem in the North Atlantic Council. With regard to the position of Britain, we shall, of course, hope to keep in very close touch with the United States Government on this matter, and I would be very surprised if this was not one of the subjects which we shall be discussing a week on Sunday.

Mr. Thorpe: Although there is no fixed agenda, may we assume that the Prime Minister will discuss the possibility of an American, if not a British, initiative towards control of the supply of arms, etc., to the Middle East, Nigeria or any other part of the world where they are likely to cause a breach of the peace?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that we are in close touch with the United States about this. If he looks up HANSARD, he will find that two Questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on that part of his question which dealt with arms supplies to Nigeria and relief.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: While understanding as a legitimate Parliamentary ploy the desire of hon. Members opposite to have the Prime Minister out of the country as much as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that quite a few Members of this House think that he is quite capable of deciding for himself whom he shall meet and when?

The Prime Minister: The meeting with the President will take place in this country. It is very convenient that there is this opportunity.

Mr. Tapsell: Do not the Prime Minister's relations with the President seem to have become more informal than has been the custom with British Prime Ministers in the past?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already informed the House of our discussion about my visiting there in the spring and again this summer, which certainly has been possible. But I had the opportunity of a very full discussion with the President on his visit to this country in February and while we have been discussing the possibility of a further meeting, next week's opportunity has now occurred.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the President of the United States how important many hon. Members on this side of the House consider it to be that such bilateral contacts should be made with East European countries? Will he also make it quite clear to the President of the United States that we are extremely concerned and interested in the development of a European security conference, which would include the United States, which could lead ultimately to a European security pact?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the first part of the question, my hon. Friend will be aware of the line taken by N.A.T.O., including, of course, the United States, in Iceland last year and, again, the declaration which was made in Washington at the N.A.T.O. 20th anniversary celebrations on this question, which can best be explored, I agree, by bilateral contacts.
With regard to the second part of the question, there has been the recent Finnish initiative, which I discussed last week with the President of Finland. As I have already told the House, there now seems to be understanding on both sides that the United States and other non-European countries interested in Europe could be involved. I have also expressed hope after my talks with Herr Brandt that the difficulty about the two Germany's looks like being within reach of solution. Even so, it is important that this conference should be properly prepared.

GANDHI (CENTENARY)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will outline his proposed arrangements for the commemoration of Gandhi Centenary year.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to

commemorate the Gandhi Centenary year; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have contributed £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for the Gandhi Centenary. In addition, we contributed £4,000 towards the cost of the statue of Gandhi in Tavistock Square and some £10,000 to cover the cost of a British Pavilion at the Gandhi International Exhibition in Delhi. Apart from this, the Post Office is issuing a special commemorative stamp and the India Office Library is mounting a special exhibition.

Mr. Hunt: While acknowledging that help and the issue of the commemorative stamp, to which the Prime Minister has referred—very fittingly designed by an Indian resident of this country—may I ask the Prime Minister also to continue to encourage positive participation by the Government in the centenary activities, partly as a tribute to a very great man and also as a means of furthering Indo-British relations, which in recent years, as the Prime Minister is well aware, have from time to time suffered considerable strains and stresses?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I agree with the objectives in the hon. Member's question. He was probably present at the great festival in Tavistock Square last year when I unveiled the Gandhi memorial. I hope, as, indeed, do other Ministers to be able to attend the very special centenary tribute at the Royal Albert Hall in October as part of the Gandhi centenary celebrations.

Mr. Carter-Jones: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his observations, may I ask whether, in view of Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to securing the peaceful transfer of power from His Majesty's Government to the peoples of the sub-continent in India, it would not now be appropriate for the Government to initiate, in this particular year, a study of the rôle of non-violence in the conduct of world affairs today?

The Prime Minister: That raises a much wider issue and, of course, a much wider geographical setting. But those of us who have been called upon to pay tribute to the memory of the late Mahatma Gandhi, as I have, not only in speeches, but in writing, while not agreeing with everything he did in relation to


the United Kingdom at certain critical times, will, I think, pay tribute to the extent to which he tried, in the solution of this problem and other problems with which India was later concerned, to bring the concept of non-violent solutions.

Sir J. Rodgers: While the whole House will welcome the contribution by the Government to the Mahatma Gandhi commemoration, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain why his attitude with regard to a statue to Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square is so ambivalent? Why does not the Prime Minister make the same generous gesture for the provision of a statue to Sir Winston Churchill?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has introduced a rather sour note into an issue of great importance in Anglo-Indian relations, quite apart from our desire to pay tribute at this centenary time. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Answers I gave concerning a statue to Sir Winston Churchill. What I said was that we were prepared—and I think that this carries the support of those sponsoring the proposal—to make an appropriate contribution to it but that it would mean far more if those involved could make it the subject of a nation-wide appeal, with support from the many thousands, perhaps millions, who wish to pay tribute to Sir Winston Churchill. I do not think that that is on a parallel with this issue.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will undertake discussions with the Prime Minister of France regarding the eventual co-ordination of the British and French nuclear deterrents.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) on 17th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 878–81.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Last week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he had no proposals to make to the French Government on this matter. The French

Prime Minister has, however, made a specific proposal suggesting that the co-ordination of the British and French deterrents would form the logical follow through of British entry into the European Community. What are the Prime Minister's views about that specific proposal?

The Prime Minister: That was not a specific proposal. The French Prime Minister said in his speech—it was not at all misquoted by the hon. Member—that he envisaged this as something which would follow after British entry into the Community. It is, therefore, not an immediate proposal by the Prime Minister of France or, as far as I am aware, by anyone else. Our view, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) on 17th July, is that while I favour the setting-up of arrangements for much closer co-operation on defence matters by the European countries, not least between France and ourselves, this should be done within N.A.T.O. and the overall control of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend take note, however, that there is growing opposition in France to the tremendous expenditure envisaged on nuclear weapons, as there is growing opposition to this expenditure in this country? Will he not, therefore, listen to this advice and take up this point but rather correspond to the policy on foreign affairs of the French Government, which wishes for an overall agreement with Eastern Europe? Is there not a more fruitful field of joint co-operation there than in these nuclear proposals?

The Prime Minister: The question of public opinion in France and any review of nuclear policy in France must be a matter for the French Government and people. Our concern in these proposals is to express our hope that France will now come back fully within the framework of N.A.T.O. in all these defence matters and that any question of this kind is best discussed in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. With French co-operation there, I am sure that we could make the best possible progress in the direction which most hon. Members would wish to see. With regard to both parts of Europe and further afield, I have already referred


to the European Security Conference and also to the vitally important strategic arms limitation which I shall be discussing with the President in the near future.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister dispose of the myth on his own benches that there is anything in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent Anglo-French collaboration? Will not he also agree that Britain has advantages to gain, both in technology and in finance, from collaborating with the French?

The Prime Minister: I think I have made it clear that on any reading of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is no question of proliferation, as far as collaboration between two nuclear Powers is concerned, such as Britain and France, Britain and America or any other two nuclear Powers. The question of a breach of that treaty would arise if there were, for example, a European deterrent which went beyond the existing nuclear Powers, unless, as the treaty obviously envisages, there were at some distant future time a single country in Europe with a single defence administration and a single foreign policy, and which inherited any nuclear equipment or nuclear potentialities of its individual members.

Mr. Mayhew: Is not there a very great difference between the idea of a European deterrent, to which the objections are obvious, and the idea of an agreement between Britain and France confined to the joint control of their existing nuclear weapons, which would reduce the number of independent deterrents from five to four and might have considerable advantages to both countries?

The Prime Minister: The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was in relation to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I think that I gave the right interpretation of it. Certainly I agree that there is a very big difference between a European nuclear deterrent, as my hon. Friend has said, and co-operation between individual nuclear Powers. But, so far, co-operation between Britain and France has been largely precluded by the specific nuclear policy of the previous French Govern-

ment and by the fact that the French Government have not been taking part actively in N.A.T.O. and particularly within the Nuclear Planning Group. If France were to come within the nuclear planning group, that might help to create a new situation.

Mr. Amery: Seeing that there is both a British national plan and an Anglo-American plan for the utilisation of the British deterrent, will the Prime Minister at least keep an open mind about the possibility of an Anglo-French plan if other circumstances, economic, Common Market and so on, should hake this seem desirable?

The Prime Minister: The answer is, as I have said, that this is a matter within the alliance of N.A.T.O. and of the Nuclear Planning Group. We should be more than happy to have the opportunity of talking to the French within the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. So far France has not been playing any part in it.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will agree that we still have national control over our own nuclear deterrent, within the terms of the negotiation of its attribution to N.A.T.O. when required. If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field in the context of discussions about the Common Market, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss these proposals?

The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman for some time, since long before the French Prime Minister's speech, has been advocating something of this kind in connection with the European negotiations, particularly during the period of government of President de Gaulle. In my view, it would be extremely unwise to link this with negotiations for entering into the Common Market. I have seen no disposition on the part of the Six to attempt to extract from us a deal of that kind, linking two things which are very different indeed. There is room for co-operation, on the other hand, between Britain and France on a wide issue of subjects and for an improvement in relations which have not been all that good for several years. The right forum for talks with the French in the nuclear military field is not the Common Market but N.A.T.O.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the most important fact about nuclear weapons is that the world stock has grown in 10 years by one hundred times to the present stock of a million megatons? Will he reaffirm that this is regarded by the Government as a growing danger and that it is still their policy to work for the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is our aim to work for that. Without commenting on the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend, I will go one stage further and say that there is a danger of a new qualitative as well as quantitative risk in the arms race with the introduction of A.B.M.s and things of that kind. That is why we attach so much importance to the forthcoming talks, if they are held, as we hope they will be, between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. It would of course be most valuable if France now felt able to sign the test ban and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Failure to take these two steps is the most important factor which inhibits further co-operation.

Mr. Heath: While we are accustomed to the Prime Minister saying what he would like the French Government to do, my question to him was quite specific If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss them?

The Prime Minister: I replied to that question the first time it was asked, and I will repeat what I said, even though it is a hypothetical question. The French Prime Minister has come forward with no such proposals. We are prepared to discuss nuclear military co-operation, whether with France or with other allies, in the proper forum, which is the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. I hope that is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman wants, and that he will support it, because it is right. I said also that it would help if the French were to sign the test ban treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I hope that he will support that. The answer is yes, in the proper forum, which is the nuclear planning group of N.A.T.O.

ACHIEVEMENT IN SPACE (EARLY DAY MOTIONS)

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I apologise for not having given notice of wishing to raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the unique and unparalled nature of the American achievement in landing men on the moon, and the fact that there are on the Order Paper three separate Early Day Motions congratulating the three American astronauts on this fantastic achievement, could not means be found to express the feelings which are unanimous on all sides, transcending party politics as they do, in a form which would enable a resolution to be passed by the House as opposed to Early Day Motions which appear on the Order Paper and are never debated?
[That this House, recognising the unparalleled triumph of intelligence and courage that the landing on the moon represents, offers its profound congratulations to Mr. Neil Armstrong, Colonel Edwin Aldrin and Colonel Michael Collins, to the scientific and technical staff in support, and to the entire American people in their achievement of a new vision for the human race.]
[That this House congratulates the crew of Apollo 11, N.A.S.A., United States industry and the American people on achieving the first landing of man on the moon and wishes the crew a safe return.]
[That this House salutes the courage of the first men on the moon; congratulates the United States Government and the entire Apollo team on the imagination and high technical skills that made this historic feat possible, and further expresses the conviction that in exploring outer space men will find better methods of safeguarding world peace and improving the human condition.]
In view of the transcendent importance of the achievement by the Americans, I feel sure that the House will wish to express its feelings in this way.

The Prime Minister: We have a Motion on the Order Paper, and so have many other hon. Gentlemen. It is free for all hon. Members of the House to sign one or the other and, if it would help


to get a single Early Day Motion, I shall be glad to discuss with the leaders of the other two parties the possibility of an all-party Motion which any hon. Member who wishes to do so could sign. That would be as good a declaration of all-party support as we could have.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMON- WEALTH AFFAIRS (STATE- MENT)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July, concerning a supranational system governing the Common Market, represents the policy of the Government.

Mr. RAPHAEL TUCK: To ask the Prime Minister if the public statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Brussels on 15th July on the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. RENÉE SHORT: To ask the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 15th July in Brussels on the Common Market represents Government policy.

Mr. MILNE: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 15th July in Brussels, on the subject of the Common Market, represents Government policy.

Mr. ORME: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Brussels on 15th July on the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. With great respect, this concerns the Prime Minister and perhaps he would be kind enough to remain while I am putting the point of order. I apologise for putting the matter in that way.
Mr. Speaker, you may have observed a series of Questions at the end of the

section dealing with Questions to the Prime Minister. Those Questions refer to what appears to be a conflict of opinion as between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Some of us are anxious to obtain clarification on this issue before the Recess, since we shall have no opportunity to have the matter clarified in the House until we return some time in October.
In the circumstances, I am wondering whether, since the Prime Minister has remained to hear my point of order, he would care to clear up this apparent confusion in statements made by himself and the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request from the Prime Minister to answer any of the later Questions except Q26, which I hope he will soon be answering.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. I was not aware of any confusion. I did not know what anxieties lay behind Questions Nos. Q19 to 22 and 24. Since the answer is short, I would be happy to alleviate these anxieties by giving the answer that I would have given, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made no public statement during his visit to Brussels on 15th July.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made no public statement. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was present at a meeting in Brussels last week, of the Monnet Group. The Monnet Group has nothing official about it; it is not related to the British Government or any other Government. The Foreign Secretary attended that meeting and made an unequivocal statement relating to our attitude on the Common Market. As this statement obviously conflicts with statements which have been repeatedly made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, surely we are entitled to some clarification.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are entitled to put Questions at the appropriate place. We have not reached those Questions on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman's point is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a point of order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that the habit of raising points of order is growing and that points of order, genuine or not, cut into the business of the day.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My point of order is as follows. Whether accidentally or deliberately, we have had the Answer to Questions by the Prime Minister, and it is the normal practice in Parliament that when an answer is given to a Question on the Order Paper, supplementary questions are then allowed. Here is a situation in which the House has had an answer and we are not allowed to cross-examine upon it, which is the only way Parliament can fulfil its proper rôle.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be done by points of order.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker can take only one point of order at a time. Dame Irene Ward.

Dame Irene Ward: I will not refer to the point of order I wanted to raise after Question Time, as you, Mr. Speaker, requested me, except to say that I did not put my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power because in your wisdom Mr. Speaker, you did not call me to put the question.
May I raise this point of order? Would you kindly advise the House why, at this late stage, we have not yet seen the list following the ballot for those selected to raise subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, what recent practice has been. I think that you referred to this matter last week.

Mr. Speaker: I will deal with the point briefly. When I came to the Chair the ballot had been completed and my staff were typing out the result of the ballot. It happened to be rather longer because this year we have broken all records. There are 65 debates tomorrow night on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I think that the list will be up by now.

Mr. Orme: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the

Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Prime Minister in his reply said that this was a private meeting, attended by the Foreign Secretary. I understood that the Prime Minister had given a direction that all Ministers were to follow out Government policy wherever they might be, whether it be at Brussels or at the National Executive of the Labour Party. How is it that the Foreign Secretary could make a statement in Brussels which was in contradiction of what the Prime Minister had said in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order. Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had satisfied the hon. Lady.

Dame Irene Ward: I merely wanted to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courteous reply, which the House will be very glad to hear.

Mr. Speaker: I am so grateful.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order. Would I be right—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the right, like anyone else, to put a point of order.

Mr. Thorpe: Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Speaker, to call me on a point of order just before the hon. Lady rose?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I did. I interrupted the proceedings to have a gracious conversation with the hon. Lady. Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Could you help us, Mr. Speaker, on your Ruling? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made certain representations the Prime Minister got up and, as far as some of us could see, was asking permission to answer some Questions. If that is so, can we take it that they then become normal Questions, subject to the normal rights to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Speaker: Two of the points of order which have since emerged were disguised supplementary questions. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Heath: I wished to raise the same point of order, Sir. The House is in the position that the Prime Minister has been allowed to answer Questions and there have been no supplementary questions presumably because they were interrupted by the points of order which then arose. I wish to inquire when the opportunity for supplementaries will arise.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be able to help if it refrains from putting any more points of order.

Mr. Jennings: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and, at the same time, make a request, following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The Prime Minister has answered a number of Questions. In view of that, may I be allowed to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may ask one.

Mr. Jennings: Last week, in answer to a supplementary question of mine, the Prime Minister stated that I had no need to worry about the prospects of this country being committed by him to joining a federal Europe. In view of the statement by the Foreign Secretary in Brussels, who is answering for the Government—the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister: Nothing the Foreign Secretary has said has departed in the slightest from the line taken at this Box by himself and by myself. I think that perhaps I might have misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington had in mind, because my information has been that such anxiety as has arisen has emanated from reports, which I do not consider to be accurate, of an unattributable Press conference and not to reports of the meeting of the Monnet Committee. That perhaps explains the misunderstanding and the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) a moment ago.
That is all I know as to what was said there. I have checked on the matter. The position is exactly as it has been in

relation to any federal or political commitments in Europe. There is no change in what I have previously stated in the House is the position of the Government.
The only political implications that we are asked to assume by joining the Treaty of Rome are those structural and other provisions within the treaty itself. It carries with it no implications for other forms. On my return from Sweden I quoted with warm approval what Herr Brandt said, that if there were further moves towards political unity they would have to be done by an entirely separate organisation.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile the assurance which he gave me on 10th June, that as far as Great Britain was concerned a federal Europe was just "not on", with the continued membership of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of the Monnet Committee for a United States of Europe, which has as its avowed objective a federal Europe?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing inconsistent. I have said repeatedly that there is no immediate proposal by us or by other Governments for any federal get-together or structure in Europe, and it is not involved in any way by our application to join the Treaty of Rome. Some right hon. and hon. Members look forward to a federal Europe very many years from now. I believe that to be very hypothetical. It does not fit in with the general opinion of this House or the country as an immediate proposition. I have often quoted the late Hugh Gaitskell on that point. On the other hand, it may come in the much more distant future, and there is nothing inconsistent between the present position and the work of the Monnet Committee.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members about the alleged statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Brussels stems from the fact that my right hon. Friend consistently refuses to give us information which we ask for consistenly, namely, the cost to this country of entry into the Common Market?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told me on 23rd June that it would do a disservice to the House to give a


detailed calculation on the cost of entry; yet, a few days afterwards, we read in the Press that a Government survey is carrying out a statistical investigation and that the estimate of agricultural costs alone to this country is between £400 and £500 million a year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech disguised as a supplementary question.

Mrs. Short: Is it surprising, therefore, that we are very concerned about the whole question?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I myself have answered many questions about the cost and the impossibility in present circumstances of making an accurate estimate of costs, particularly since we cannot forecast what changes there will be in the Common Agricultural Policy.
I have already informed the House that references to a certain article in a newspaper about a fortnight ago as being a Government document are without foundation. There has been no Government document giving that information.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary attended this meeting not as Foreign Secretary, but as a representative of the Labour Party? Would the Prime Minister confirm that the views both of the Labour Party and of the Government not only on federation, but on the supranational powers of any institution, are no more than anything that he has said in the House?

The Prime Minister: That is the position of the Government and of my right hon. Friend. Every Foreign Minister and other Ministers from a number of countries who attend the Monnet Committee do so in a personal capacity or representing their parties and not representing their Governments. This has been the position for very many years.
As for that meeting, my right hon. Friend answer a Question about it on 21st July, put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). But I thought that the anxiety—this is why I sought to answer the Questions; I was concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Member

for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said—arose not from what was said in that confidential meeting, but from what was said and, I think, unfairly reported as a result of an unattributable Press conference. I thought it right to put the record straight so that my hon. Friends should feel less anxious about what they read.

Mr. Peyton: Since when have Ministers had anything other than an official capacity? How can it be that the Foreign Secretary can attend the meeting in a purely personal capacity? This arises directly out of what the Prime Minister has just said. I had no intention of intervening in these exchanges until he made that extraordinary remark.

The Prime Minister: There are abundant precedents for that kind of meeting. But, as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, although it was a confidential meeting, I know that my right hon. Friend did not at that meeting or any other attempt in any capacity to go beyond what has been said repeatedly by me in this House, or beyond the policy of the Government. I have that from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Molloy: Now that we seem to be getting into all sorts of difficulties with regard to the nuclear deterrent and to being part of a federated Europe, does not my right hon. Friend consider that we ought to make a clean break and a fresh start? Does not my right hon. Friend consider, further, that he ought to make a public statement to the effect that we will have nothing to do with the Common Market and that we will look again at our position vis-à-vis Europe?

Mr. Maudling: This meeting was confidential. I was there, and I do not intend to reveal what happened. But is it right for the Prime Minister to say what was the attitude taken by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at a confidential meeting?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I was repeating what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said. If I had misunderstood him, I regret it. I thought that he said that my right hon. Friend stuck throughout to the line adopted by the Government. If he excluded the confidential meeting from that, which is quite fair, I regret the misunderstanding.

Mr. Thorpe: Whatever one's views for or against the Common Market, would the Prime Minister agree that nothing would be more disastrous than for us to be thought to take one view in Europe and a different one in this House and the country? Is he aware that during the meeting of the Monnet Committee there was a discussion on the Hallstein proposals for political integration? Since the Prime Minister has mentioned the nature of the discussions which took place in those talks, is he aware that the Foreign Secretary, as a result of close questioning, led all those present to believe that the Government had no reservations upon that matter?

The Prime Minister: All I know is that my right hon. Friend at all times has stood firmly on the line that we have taken as a Government in all these matters.

Mr. English: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when he says he does not wish to go into the federal Europe he means that he does not wish to see the E.E.C. structure democratised, for example, in the way that Dr. Hallstein has suggested?

The Prime Minister: The only commitments of my right hon. Friend and myself on the question of entering the Common Market is that we accept the political institutions included in the Treaty of Rome. I have heard Professor Hallstein seek to make proposals going beyond the Treaty of Rome. That is a matter for him. He is free to do so. But it is not what we are committed to in our application.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister to answer Question No. Q26.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMBUDSMAN SYSTEM)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WHITAKER: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he now has for extending the field of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Question No. Q26.
At Question Time on 24th June I told the House that the Government were considering urgently whether there should be an ombudsman for local government and, also, what similar arrangement might be considered for the National Health Service, and that I hoped to be able to make a statement shortly.
I am now able to inform the House that the Government accept in principle that an ombudsman system should be by law established for investigating complaints of maladministration by local government. The activities of local authorities impinge upon the daily life of the citizens directly and over a wide range and the introduction of a system analogous to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner into the local government sphere would be a major extension of the citizen's right to seek redress.
We envisage that a local ombudsman system would be separate from the Parliamentary Commissioner system; that its scope in relation to local government affairs would be similar to the scope of the P.C.A. in central Government affairs; and that the independent reports would be considered by the appropriate local authority.
The Government will, therefore, enter into discussions with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with a view to introducing the necessary legislation; and will then present detailed proposals in the context of local government reorganisation.
As to Health Service administration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed the House on 19th May that he was convinced that there was a substantial case for a health commissioner, though such an office should not be confused in its functions with the new hospital advisory service that he is now in process of setting up.
It will be necessary to consider, in consultation with the professional and other interests, how far the new service, when it is established, meets one side of the problem; the relationship of any commissioner to the new service; and also other problems of definition, for example, where complaints may involve clinical matters. These are questions which the Health Ministers will be considering as part of the proposals now being worked


out for the future administrative structure of the health service.
I think that the House will be glad to have this statement of the Government's intentions in this matter, which represent a further important step in the consistent line of policy which we began with the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Whitaker: Are not these very welcome extensions of this institution for the democratic safeguard of individual rights, which was initiated by the Labour Government after the Tories had refused to do so? Will the present and future Labour Governments also consider the extension of the same principle of independent investigation for allegations against the police and the nationalised industries, and personal cases of members of the Armed Forces and Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: That is widening it very much further. I think that this is the right step to take at present. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the position in relation to the Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary answered a Question about the police on 19th June, when he said that he was keeping the matter of the existing procedures for complaints about the police under review.

Mr. Carlisle: Can the Prime Minister say how many people he envisages serving as ombudsmen in local government? It will be a very large number, will it not?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter that we must discuss in the first instance with the local authorities, and this we intend to do in the discussions we shall have with them later this year about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend consider a suggestion, from one who supports him on the present boundaries agitation, that this matter might wait for Redcliffe-Maud?

The Prime Minister: I have said that it will be discussed with the local authorities in our discussions about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. Clearly, it will be a great deal easier to make permanent arrangements for a local ombuds-

man service when we have the precise boundaries following the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but I would have thought that it would be possible to make progress ahead of that. For example, there are London and certain other big cities, whose position will not be very much changed even under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, where a start should be made.

Sir D. Renton: Will local councillors have the same opportunities and responsibilities with regard to the local government ombudsman as Members of Parliament have in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner?

The Prime Minister: That is very much a question we shall want to discuss with the local authorities. We do not want to be too hard and fast on how the system should work in matters which will involve reports which will have to be considered by the local councils. One important problem arising out of that question is that in the House we have the advantage also of a Select Committee to guide the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. We shall want to consider whether it would be possible to have anything similar to that in at any rate major local authorities.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I enthusiastically welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that we are to have a Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with local authority affairs. Many of us would feel that the arrangements by which referrals to the Parliamentary Commissioner so far have been by Members of the House should be continued when we consider complaints about local authority matters.

The Prime Minister: This will also have to be considered.

Mr. Hooson: While I welcome both announcements, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will confirm that it is not in his mind that complaints against health authorities should come from Members of Parliament, and that the people should have direct recourse to the Commissioner? Has he any time scale in mind for the setting up of the ombudsman system in respect of, one, local government, and two, health authorities?

The Prime Minister: I have said that my right hon. Friend was considering


the very special problems, which are different, in relation to the Health Service, and considering that as part of the future administrative structure of the Service.
With regard to the local government ombudsman, this is a matter we shall discuss later in the year with the local authority associations. I hope that we can make reasonably rapid progress thereafter.

Mr. Lawson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the making of this decision, the opinion of the Select Committee was taken into account, and, if so, what that opinion was?

The Prime Minister: We did not ask it to report on the question of local government. It is an entirely separate question, outside the present Act, and legislation will be needed. What we took into account was what I think many hon. Members will feel to have been the successful working of the Parliamentary Commissioner within the statutory limitations, and the great help given by the Select Committee. That was why I said that I hoped it might be possible to follow the example of having a Select Committee when we do what should be done in local government.

Mr. Hogg: Obviously, it is rather difficult to comment on the proposals in their present nebulous form. Can the Prime Minister say what is in his mind as regards publishing to the House the results of his consultations with local authorities? When is that likely to be? Will he contemplate publishing the results in the form of a White Paper, so that we can discuss them?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that very full information will be given to the House after the consultations with the local authorities. I cannot forecast an exact time, but we shall start them at the same time as we start on the Redcliffe-Maud discussions with them. Whether that should then be done by a White Paper, or included in the White Paper we have already said will be published following the Redcliffe-Maud discussions, or by some other appropriate Parliamentary means, I would like to consider a little nearer the time.
If the proposals are understandably somewhat nelbuous at this stage, it is

because I thought it right that we should have full consultation with the local authorities. I thought, equally, that the House should be told about them even before we started.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received very warmly, especially by the citizens of large cities and towns? Does he agree that if there must be any delay in the application of the idea it would be helpful at least to make an early start with the larger cities and towns, and will he commend that to the local authorities?

The Prime Minister: That was one of the things I mentioned as a possibility in answer to an earlier supplementary Question, because I do not think that it is necessary to wait for the new post-Maud local authority boundaries to be established and the new authorities to be in existence. In some cases—perhaps in the Manchester area that my hon. Friend has in mind—it would perhaps be possible to start the idea earlier, even before the new Maud boundaries came into effect.
If the trend is to be to a smaller number of large local authorities, that means that there will be fewer local councillors with executive responsibility in the fields that most touch the citizen and general public, and that strengthens the case for getting on with the proposals.

Dr. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister explain why it is not practicable, apparently, for him to extend the functions of the present ombudsman to local government, from which he is excluded, instead of setting up a completely new authority, and are not police matters local government matters, in any case?

The Prime Minister: They are a very special form of local administration, and I have nothing to add at this stage to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said.
We considered whether our purpose could be achieved by extending the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner, but many of these questions require local investigations on the spot, and even if the Parliamentary Commissioner were put in charge of the whole machine he would have to have a considerable number of outposts, assistant commissioners who would have to have direct


contact with the local authorities and make reports to be considered by the local authorities. On balance—more than on balance—the argument is against extending our own Parliamentary Commissioner's powers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Crosland. Statement.

COTTON AND ALLIED TEXTILES (REPORT)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The Government have now completed their examination of the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles.
The report addressed a number of recommendations to both the Government and the industry, and these have been the subject of continuing consultations with the council.
The recommendations to the industry concerned, in particular, the need to increase the rate of re-equipment, to extend multi-shift working, and to develop closer technical and commercial links between the different stages of production and marketing. I attach great importance to these three requirements, and I am working closely with the Textile Council on their implementation.
The main recommendations to the Government concerned future policy on imports and financial assistance to encourage re-equipment.
On import policy, the council recommended that the present quota system should be replaced by a tariff on imports of cotton textiles from the Commonwealth preference area at a rate not less than 85 per cent. of the most-favoured-nation duties. On cotton cloth, the main item of trade, this would mean a duty of 15 per cent. The council believes that a tariff would be a better solution both for the industry and the country than a continuation of quotas. It would offer a margin of protection that was both stable and predictable, so enabling the industry to plan ahead with confidence. A continuation of quotas, on the other hand, would not give the industry the confidence or the incentive to undertake the investment needed to make it more competitive.
Imports of cotton textiles into Britain, the greater part of which enter duty-free, have now reached 53 per cent. of total domestic consumption. This is a far higher proportion than in any other major developed country. In these circumstances, we have the alternatives of re-negotiating the present unsatisfactory quota arrangements, or adopting a tariff which would be broadly in line with those of other developed countries.
The Government have decided that the right course is to introduce, as from 1st January, 1972, a tariff on imports from the Commonwealth preference area on the lines proposed by the Textile Council. From that date the existing general quota system would be terminated; and the Government would consider the use of quotas only on particular products under the Long-Term Cotton Arrangement of the G.A.T.T., and only if total imports of cotton textiles rose significantly above the present level and caused disruption to the market in those particular products. These decisions would, of course, be subject to any modifications that might be required if we joined the E.E.C.
In reaching this decision I have taken account of the fact that a number of countries in the Commonwealth have rights to duty-free entry into the United Kingdom market; and I shall now initiate the necessary discussions with the Governments concerned. I am equally conscious, on the other hand, that cotton textiles have long been treated internationally as a special case; and this decision will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade in advance of any general change of system which might be required by our entry into the E.E.C.
The effect of the new arrangement should be to reduce imports from the developed countries which have benefited markedly from the existence of quota restrictions on imports from the developing countries. There is no reason to think that, with the possible exception of India, the developing countries of the Commonwealth generally will be able to export less to Britain over a tariff of this amount than they would under a continuation of the quota system.
So far as India is concerned, the Government will, when the time comes to


determine the level of aid to India after 1972, take into account, against the background of India's general aid requirements at that time, any adverse effects on her exports arising from the tariff.
I turn to the question of financial assistance to the industry. The Textile Council proposed that firms in the traditional textile areas should be offered the 40 per cent. rate of investment grant which is payable in the development areas. The Government have decided against this both on general grounds of regional policy and because in present circumstances, including, in particular, the position on public expenditure, we would not be justified in singling out this industry for financial assistance on such a scale.
The council also proposed that plant worked on a multi-shift basis should qualify for a higher than normal annual allowance for depreciation. The Government attach importance to any proposal which might increase the utilisation of new machinery, and the Inland Revenue is prepared to consider an application by the Textile Council for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery.
In addition, the two consultants whom I have appointed to advise me on mergers between medium and small-sized firms in the industry are in close touch with the I.R.C. They have seen more than 70 firms, and enough progress has been made to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions on prospective mergers.
The proposal to replace quotas by a tariff forms an essential part of a developing policy designed to help this industry to survive and compete in an international environment. I have already announced decisions on the structure of the industry which should give the large firms the stability they need to proceed with their internal reorganisation and integration, while encouraging a much-needed process of amalgamation amongst the small and medium firms.
Today's decisions carry the policy a crucial stage further. Successive Governments have failed to come to grips with the industry's basic problems; and the industry itself has failed to adapt sufficiently to changing circumstances. I hope that the decisions that I have announced, provided that they are accompanied by a clear determination on the part of both

sides of the industry to carry out the changes recommended by the Textile Council, will enable the Lancashire textile industry once again to take its place in the forefront of British industry.

Sir K. Joseph: This is a departure from the Ottowa Agreement and, although it is in connection with the textile industry, which occupies a unique position in our international trade, a number of questions need to be asked.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the main impact of these tariff proposals would fall on exports from the developed countries. Would he tell the House what proportion of total domestic consumption of cotton textiles now comes from developed countries?
Secondly, will he tell us what proportion of total domestic consumption of cotton textiles, remembering that it is now a multi-fibre industry, will come from all imports after 1972? It is now at the large figure of 53 per cent.
Thirdlly, not once in his statement did the right hon. Gentleman mention a point on which the Textile Council laid enormous emphasis—that the change from quota to tariff must be accompanied, in the view of the council, by stronger action against dumping. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government propose any action to protect the British industry from exports from countries which indulge in hidden export aids and other dumping practices?
Will the special depreciation consideration to be given for the multi-shift use of textile machinery be extended to other industries whose machinery is used on a multi-shift basis?
The right hon. Gentleman promised that when he made this statement he would give the Government's answer to the Monopoly Commission's recommendations in connection with rayon cellulosic fibres. Will he now give the Government's answers on those recommendations.

Mr. Crosland: I do not have a precise figure for the proportion of consumption that comes from imports from developed as opposed to developing countries, but, being a mathematician, the right hon. Gentleman can work it out if I say that one-quarter of total imports come from developed countries and that total imports take 53 per cent. of domestic


consumption—these are volume figures—I leave the right hon. Gentleman to work out the exact answer.
Naturally, one cannot give any precise figure of the proportion that imports will take of the the total market after 1972, but I judge that it will be lower than the present proportion of 53 per cent.
I have told the Textile Council that in my view the powers we now have to deal with dumping, powers that have been strengthened in legislation which went through Parliament last Session, are fully adequate to deal with any of the problems which the textile industry may meet in that respect.
As for extending the higher depreciation allowance to other industries, I prefer to wait and see what happens when the industry makes its application to the Inland Revenue.
I answered a Question about the Monopolies Commission's recommendations on cellulosic fibres which was put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp).

Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of the substitution of tariffs for quotas will be generally if not universally acclaimed in the industry? To what extent do his proposals fit in with the discussions which I presume he and his Department have had with the employer and trade union organisations in the industry?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his first question. I am sure that he is right to say that the decision will be welcomed by all the most progressive elements on both sides of the industry. The main discussions which I have had since the publication of the Textile Council's Report on 31st March have been with the council itself, which, of course, represents both sides of industry.

Sir Frank Pearson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in so far as his statement gives certainty to the industry, it will be welcome? However, does he recognise that the fact that there is to be no transitional period, coupled with the fact that he has refused the 40 per cent. investment grant, will place a great number of small firms in an extremely difficult trading position? Will he re-

consider the question of the advisability of having an intermediate transitional period particularly to protect that type of firm?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an element of certainty is the key to the whole problem. This is one of the strongest arguments for the tariff solution. There will, of course, be a transitional period of one year, 1971, while the present quota system is continued before the tariff comes into effect on 1st January, 1972.
I thought closely about the 40 per cent. investment grant, but, given the fact that many large and medium-sized firms have money which I think they will now spend on investment following the decision that I have announced, and that there are amalgamations among the smaller and medium-sized firms, which I hope will be encouraged by the I.R.C., I did not think that one could make out a case for singling out this particular industry for this kind of exceptional treatment.

Mr. Blackburn: While the industry will, of course, be grateful for anything that happens along these lines, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is at least one dissentient voice on the question of the 15 per cent. tariff, particularly if it is to be limited to Commonwealth countries? Would he explain why the Government are repeatedly so adamant on the question of the most effective method of dealing with our problems? I refer to import controls. Would he explain the effect of his statement on the E.F.T.A. countries?

Mr. Crosland: It comes as no surprise to find that there is one dissentient voice. Indeed, I shall be surprised if there is only one such voice as the discussion on this decision develops. My hon. Friend asks why we have not imposed import controls as opposed to a tariff. The reason is that I have been convinced by the careful arguments made by the Textile Council that this is the best method of restricting imports. The E.F.T.A. countries are not affected by this decision; in other words, imports from E.F.T.A. remain duty free.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he has said


about the level of the tariff? Does he realise that all depends on the level of the tariff, since the industry may find that it has thrown away the shield of quotas and has received an even flimsier shield in exchange?

Mr. Crosland: The level of the tariff is the level proposed in the Report of the Textile Council; that is, 6½ per cent. on yarn, 15 per cent. on cotton cloth, which accounts for the greater part of the trade, and 17 per cent. on most garments. It is, therefore, the same level as that proposed by the council.

Mr. Barnett: Is there not some evidence to show that the dissentient voice on the Textile Council had some merit in that at least some of the 15 per cent. could be absorbed by foreign textile producers? Before agreeing to remove the quota system altogether, would my right hon. Friend make inquiries abroad to see just how this will affect the total imports of textiles into this country?
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), since E.F.T.A. countries like Portugal will be able to continue to export to us, is my right hon. Friend aware that this will be viewed with considerable concern in that Portugal will be able to continue exporting to the detriment of Lancashire?

Mr. Crosland: Portugal is only one of a number of problems that will arise under the tariff solution. I must make it clear that the alternative solution—that is, a continuation of quotas—besides being much less satisfactory for the industry would have led to as many, if not more, international complications than the imposition of a tariff.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about the likely effect on imports is that I have made the best calculations that I can and I believe that this decision will have the effect of reducing imports as a proportion of total consumption.

Dr. Winstanley: I join hon. Members in welcoming the end of uncertainty, thus enabling the people of the North-West to get on with the job at long last. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that perhaps his statement will do more to help the industry than the places in which the industry has hitherto

been placed? In other words, might it not have been better to have done more to implement all of the Hunt Report?

Mr. Crosland: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about places as opposed to the industry in general is that, decisions on intermediate areas following the Hunt Report having been taken, my concern was to provide a policy for the industry rather than for an area.

Mr. Mapp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the scope of his statement will be generally welcomed on this side of the House, by the industry and by the country? Did he consider—and, if so, did he ultimately reject—the idea of having a common tariff for the multi-fibre industry, thereby rejecting the idea of having separate proposals, one for multi-fibres and the one he has announced today?
Would my right hon. Friend consider opening negotiations, possibly of an informal nature, with E.F.T.A. countries such as Portugal, Austria and the Irish Free State on this subject? Although his statement will be broadly welcomed, has he considered the possibility of it opening back doors for those countries to the detriment of Lancashire?

Mr. Crosland: I considered the question of having a single tariff for all textile fibres, whatever sort they are, but I did not think that the case was sufficiently made out for it, although the tariff which I have announced is broadly the same as the one we now have for man-made fibres. I do not have any intention at present of entering into the sort of consultations my hon. Friend mentioned at the end of his questions.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the quota system at least has the advantage of discriminating in favour of Commonwealth producers? Is he satisfied that the new system will not sacrifice the interests of Pakistan, India and Hong Kong to Japan, Korea and other equally more or less underdeveloped countries?

Mr. Crosland: One must take the countries separately. It is impossible to generalise. One must consider them one by one. I said that India may possibly come out less well under a tariff system than under a quota system, though, in practice, I think that even under a quota


system India's exports might have dropped. For this reason I particularly referred to India. I think it unlikely that either Hong Kong or Pakistan will suffer significantly under a tariff system.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be doubly welcome in North-East Lancashire, since it follows the announcement of massive Government help for that area? Without wishing to be grudging, will my right hon. Friend look at the position of Portugal, the levels of imports from which have all along been of great concern to the Lancashire industry?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Ten bob a day wages in Portugal.

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for his opening remarks. I assure him that I am very much aware of the concern which is felt in the industry on the question of Portugal. This is, naturally, an issue which I keep very carefully under review.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Textile Council will be widely welcomed, as will his claim that he expects to see the proportion of imported textiles reduced? Will he assure us that if that does not happen he will propose further action to ensure that the industry is protected?

Mr. Crosland: I would at present prefer not to look ahead to any further or subsequent changes in the policy I have announced.

Mr. A. Royle: I, too, urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position of Portugal. Is he aware that Hong Kong might suffer badly from the institution of tariffs and will feel particularly resentful at the position of Portugal when Hong Kong is our largest dependent territory overseas?

Mr. Crosland: I have said that I carefully and closely watch the case of Portugal. However, one must not get Portugal out of perspective in considering this matter. Our imports from Portugal over the last year or two have been

running at substantially lower levels than they were three or four years ago.

Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that in reaching this decision he has got a correct balance between the needs of Lancashire and the various other needs of, for example, the developing countries along with our own needs, taking into account the movement of capital goods and goods of a technological character in the export market?

Mr. Crosland: I think that this is a solution which preserves a balance between these various factors. I am certain that it is the right solution for Lancashire. On the other hand, on the best calculations that we can make, the effect will be felt not so much in the developing countries as a whole as in those developed countries which have recently significantly increased their exports to us, partly because of the existence of quotas on the developed countries.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY (STATEMENT)

Mr. Peyton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ambivalent position of Her Majesty's Government on the question of a federal Europe following reported statements of the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July when attending in a capacity described by the Prime Minister as private an allegedly confidential meeting; and the apparent conflict between those statements and the declared policies of the British Government.
It would be an affront, Mr. Speaker, to your very considerable powers of perception if I were to expand on the arguments for this case. You were present yourself and heard the statements made by the Prime Minister, and you will be aware, without my reminding you, of the very deep anxieties in the House to understand where precisely Her Majesty's Government stand in this very important matter. You will not require me, either,


Mr. Speaker, to remind you that our remaining days of sittings are, perhaps, limited.
Perhaps with those remarks I may commend this request to you with the greatest respect.

Mr. Shinwell: Before you come to a decision, Mr. Speaker, may I raise one matter with you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am capable now of making a decision: I have listened to the exchanges and I have heard the submission.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ambivalent position of Her Majesty's Government on the question of a federal Europe following reported statements of the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July when attending in a capacity described by the Prime Minister as private an allegedly confidential meeting; and the apparent conflict between those statements and the declared policies of the British Government.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened to every word that took place in the interchange after Question Time.
I have listened to the submission which the hon. Gentleman has made to me. I have given all these points careful consideration, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provision of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to this House.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to venture to argue with your decision, of course—this is a matter within your discretion. All I have to say is that confusion remains.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The message which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has given will be conveyed, I think, to the appropriate quarter. It has nothing to do with me.

BILL PRESENTED

AMUSEMENT ARCADES (REGULATION)

Bill to enable local authorities to regulate the establishment and conduct of amusement arcades; to restrict the admission of young persons; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Lomas, supported by Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Frank Judd, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. John Binns, and Mr. Eddie Griffiths; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown shall have been disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Fitch.]

TEN MINUTE RULE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to seek leave of the House under the Ten Minute Rule to introduce a Bill, I feel that it is my duty to remind the House that, under the rule, only a brief explanatory statement from the hon. Member who moves and, if necessary, one from a Member who opposes are permitted in a Ten Minute Rule debate; and that interventions by other hon. Members are out of order.

BILL OF RIGHTS (No. 2)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject.
I am conscious of the fact that I am continuing a debate which is exciting more and more interest among thinking members of our society. There is a deep-seated feeling, which I think is entirely justified by the facts, that individual liberty is gradually being eroded, and that there is an increasing invasion of privacy, aided by technological development, for which our law, as at present defined, does not appear to provide adequate remedies.
We are rightly proud of our heritage of liberty. It is probably true that no citizens enjoy greater freedom than British citizens, and that our real freedom is very much greater than that of people in many other countries who appear, on paper, to have greater freedom. We pride ourselves on our unwritten constitution, and on the fact that the common law has been the bulwark of our liberty for centuries. Why, therefore, do I seek to bring in a Bill of Rights? Is it necessary?
It is necessary, Mr. Speaker. We have reached the stage of development where the courts and the people need a guiding legislative code of individual rights to help them. It would help the judges in defining the law more clearly and in delimiting those areas where individual rights should be sacrosanct. It would help liberalise public opinion. Indeed, the greatest threat to our liberty today perhaps arises from the fact that we do take such pride in our unwritten constitution, and from our blind faith that there is a remedy for every wrong. It is under this complacent assumption that all is well that liberty is being eroded.
I do not seek to make a Second Reading speech, or to go over points that have been covered before on this matter, but it seems to me that certain developments make a Bill of Rights, or something like it, essential today.
First, there is the growth of administrative power or bureaucracy. How often have we read the phrase in our official

correspondence, "The Department cannot intervene"? It has become almost a musical hall joke. How many of us realise that 10,000 officers of local and national government have a legal right to enter private homes? Should they always be allowed to do so if they have just followed the letter of the law, when common justice would suggest that they have overstepped their powers? Was it right that the house of Lady Diana Duff Cooper should have been searched because an anonymous telephone caller alleged to the police that they would find drugs there? Should she not have a remedy?
Secondly, there is the necessity to assert the right of individuals to privacy. The refinements of surveillance technology, as it is now called, with its huge paraphernalia of listening and recording devices, necessitate this. What are the rights of the individual with regard to the Press? Were all the interviews, carried out under the glare of the cameras, following the tragedy of Aberfan, really justified? Had the individuals concerned no right to their private grief? It is an important matter for this House to consider.
Third, there is the crucial rôle of the Crown in our daily affairs. The Government act through the Crown. Is it right that, in 1969, the courts are still unable to grant injunctions against the Crown, whereas they can grant injunctions against individuals or corporations? Does this not give our civil servants a protection which is unjustified in modern conditions?
Fourthly, there is the increasing vulnerability of the individual arising from the development of the computer, and its potential for misuse. To what degree is an individual entitled to protection from wrongful disclosure by a body or bodies to whom he has disclosed confidential information for a particular purpose? The "Computer threat to Freedom", as it has been called, is a very real thing indeed, and this House should examine it in detail.
These are just some of the problems arising in modern society upon which I have become convinced that the present means of protection are insufficient. Parliament is over-worked and the older process of the common law whereby our rights are declared as a result of actions


taken to remedy specific wrongs are inadequate in the modern world. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said that the difficulty he always finds about a Bill of Rights is either that it contains something which is already law, or is in such general terms that it is impossible to say what effect it would have. With the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor, I think this difficulty is more apparent than real.
I think that some of the Lord Chancellor's objections to the draft Bill prepared by Mr. John Macdonald and a team of Liberal lawyers, in many respects lacked conviction. It was found, after very careful consideration, that it was better to couch the Bill in general terms, thin in more detailed and specific terms and thereby to allow the judges to have plenty of scope in interpretation. We have come to the conclusion that what is needed are guide-lines and a statement of principles. In pursuance of his criticism, the Lord Chancellor referred to the Clause in the draft Bill on the right to leisure, which says:
No person shall be required as a condition of employment or continued employment or otherwise, to work excessive hours or to do without reasonable rest and leisure time.
The Lord Chancellor had great fun. He went on to say:
Think of the judge's difficulty in saying what 'excessive hours' are for every individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th June 1969; Vol. 302, c. 1047.]
Yet our judges are every day interpreting what is excessive speed. Our appeal judges are every day considering whether damages awarded are excessively high. Have they actually had difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in those circumstances? Would they have any greater difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in the Bill? I think not.
We have reached a stage in the development of our sophisticated society where it is necessary for the citizen to know clearly what his rights are, even if it is necessary to state those rights in general terms. It does not mean that they are unenforceable. The Bill of Rights which is embodied in the constitution of the

United States, and its subsequent amendments, have been a veritable anchor of freedom in that country. We have had a different constitutional development, but I am convinced that a Bill to safeguard individual liberty, to declare what an individual's rights are, is now essential. Indeed, I subscribe to the view that we are gradually moving, and that we should move, towards a written constitution. This may come under some of our constitutional changes,
In the meantime, I am sure that the debate on the pros and cons of a Bill of Rights should continue. It is not enough that a debate should take place in the abstract. If one is to have a purposeful discussion, one must have specific proposals to consider. Therefore, if given leave, I intend to introduce a Bill along the lines of that drafted by Mr. John Macdonald and the panel of Liberal lawyers who assisted him.
Even those who are not convinced that a Bill of Rights is the right way forward, feel I am sure that we need an extensive debate on the matter in the House in the near future. If my Bill is given its First Reading, and is printed, it will be available for any hon. Member to introduce next Session and it may be hoped that there will be much more extensive debates on the principles involved, and matters of the greatest concern to individuals in this country whatever political creed they follow and to whatever political party they subscribe.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hooson, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Grimond, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Peter Bessell and Mr. Wallace Lawler.

BILL OF RIGHTS (No. 2)

Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING IN THE SEVENTIES (B.B.C. PLAN)

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: The fact that we are devoting the last of our Supply Days to the B.B.C.s plan for radio in the 1970s indicates the importance which we attach to this subject. The fact that it has already been debated by the public and in the Press so persistently, and for so long, shows that it is of very great public interest. The House would have been in a better position to debate had the Postmaster-General made his expected statement. We have left this debate as late in the Session as possible to give him an opportunity to do so. We are disappointed that he did not see fit at least to let us have a statement yesterday in time for us to consider before this debate today.
We have reached a critical moment in British broadcasting. Both public service and commercial broadcasting are suffering from intractable money trouble. Our licence system, so far considered sacrosanct, is increasingly questioned now that the national rise in licences has reached a plateau and the costly inefficiency of collecting the fees becomes apparent. As things stand, the B.B.C. looks like running chronically short of money while retaining an appetite for expansion into other broadcasting fields however unsuitable for public service. At the same time, by the use of the levy the Government have reduced profit in the television companies to the level of a public utility. If this continues Independent Television will become about as adventurous as British Railways.
Our policy on radio follows the logical sequence of our policy on television. In 1954, against passionate opposition from the Labour Party, we established Independent Television. Hon. Members opposite promised—I think it

was more than a promise; a pledge—to abolish commercial television as soon as they came to power. Like other pledges, that was not honoured. It was not honoured because by then it had become obvious that competition and the breaking of the monopoly had stimulated the B.B.C. into better programmes and people enjoyed a better choice. Second, the breaking of the monopoly gave those working in television the freedom to choose among a number of employers. Third, many millions of pounds have been injected into television without cost to the public.
I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have ever worked out what the licence fees would be today if we had followed their advice and given the B.B.C. all the television channels. I suppose it would be £8 or £9, not £6, and the Government would be out of pocket to the extent of £35 million a year from the levy and taxation. In radio we acknowledge the importance of the public service type of broadcasting which the B.B.C. provides, or should provide, but when it comes to broadcasting, which could quite easily he supplied free by commercial radio, we inquire why the public should be asked for an increased licence fee. For this reason we would introduce local commercial radio.
I have said that this can be done by a combination of the v.h.f. and medium-wave frequencies. At one time the Postmaster-General said that this was not possible, but the Director-General of the B.B.C. clearly does not think it impossible for in an interview in the Sunday Times he said he did not relish commercial radio because he did not want to lose his mass audience. I think the whole tone of the document it has issued shows that the B.B.C. takes commercial radio seriously enough. We may take it that if the Government of the day decided on commercial radio they would see that facilities for it were provided.
In the same Sunday Times interview, the Director-General said that the advent of commercial radio would put up the cost of "material". Presumably he meant human material. There once again speaks the voice of the monopoly employer. If decisions are to be made as to what type of programme is suited to public service broadcasting, we must define public service broadcasting. Without going back to Reithian definitions,


which would seem out of date today, we probably all agree that minimum requirements would be, first, the provision of programmes for minorities at times and on frequencies which made them generally available and, second, a deliberate policy aimed, to some extent, at raising the level of public taste.
For many years, the B.B.C. has fulfilled those requirements to the satisfaction of listeners and to the admiration of the world. The orchestras it maintains and the quality of serious music freely available to us all, even in our motor cars, shows a concern for this music-loving minority exactly in keeping with public service. The fact that many listeners have acquired a taste for serious music only through B.B.C. programmes reflects a coherent policy of the corporation to raise public taste. People say that today London is the musical capital of the world. If so, the B.B.C. can claim a large slice of the credit.
When we examine the B.B.C.'s new proposals, we wonder whether it appreciates its own achievements, for it appears to be tending to throw them away lightly. The axe seems to be falling almost exclusively on the educational and cultural services appealing to minorities which a commercial broadcasting system is unlikely to supply. If this blueprint materialises, we shall be left with little more than a facade of public service broadcasting. Radio One is to be all Caroline. Radio Two is to be all sweet music, or 390. Radio Three is mostly serious music, but, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) rightly pointed out the other day, in reality it has been cut by being limited to v.h.f. It would not be available in motor cars. The audience would be decimated. It will be cut to a great extent by this new restriction. Radio Four is largely a speech programme. Therefore, catering for minorities has been reduced to the truncated Radio Three and some talks and drama on Radio Four. The policy of trying to improve public taste has been quietly but completely abandoned.
Under the heading "Network Radio", we lead on page 3 of the pamphlet:
Traditionally, broadcasting has been based on the principle of mixed programming. On a single channel, the public is offered the whole range: news, documentaries, plays, music, light entertainment, serials, sport—all types of programmes, covering all interests and all 'brow' levels".

Exactly. That was how listeners were introduced to better music and drama. The pamphlet continues:
But experience, both in this country and abroad, suggests that many listeners now expect radio to be based more on a different principle—that of the specialised network, offering a continuous stream of one particular type of programme, meeting one particular interest. One channel might offer pop, another serious music, another talk programmes, and so on".
That is a straight description of commercial radio. For advertising effectiveness, a station likes to attract a complete age or market group to one programme. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is not compatible with public service broadcasting if, as I suggest, one of its requirements is to educate and lead people towards better things. Network broadcasting may or not be an inevitable development, but it should not be adopted without a clear realisation of its implications. At no time in this B.B.C. publication is our attention drawn to these implications.
I have considerable respect for the B.B.C., but I think that one of its faults in the past has been that it has always over-reacted to competition and criticism, be it Mrs. Whitehouse or Radio Caroline. Radio One was the reaction to, and imitation of, Caroline. The new plans are the reaction to the threat of commercial radio. The B.B.C. argues that as a national corporation it must have a mass audience, otherwise people will not want to pay the licence fee. But it has gone too far. People are now saying, "If the B.B.C. production is to be 90 per cent. neo-commercial, why pay for a licence when we can get this sort of thing from commercial radio?".
Having discussed the public service rôle, I turn to a proposal which I think astonishing—the plan to embark on 40 local stations at a yearly cost of over £5 million, equal to nearly a quarter of the entire radio revenue of the B.B.C., at the very time when, for shortage of money, orchestras are being disbanded, Radio Three cut, staffs dismissed and the regions abolished or cut down. One wonders what the unions will say about this, particularly the Musicians Union.
Here I aim my criticism not at the Corporation but at the Government, for it was the last Postmaster-General but one who started the B.B.C. on this trail


—this irresponsible trail, as it is turning out. When he imposed the first eight experimental stations on the corporation, we told him that the financial basis for them was not merely unrealistic but laughable. Let us recall to mind the basis. The White Paper states:
Since the essential purpose of the local station is to give expression to local interests and aspirations, it seems right that its income should derive so far as is possible from local sources and not from a general licence fee. These would not include general subvention from the rates; however the local authority, particularly for its educational services, might wish to contribute…There are also in local life various other bodies which might well be prepared to make financial contribution to the costs of the station…the local university…the Open University; Chambers of Trade and Commerce; local Councils of Churches; arts associations; and other representative bodies active in the social and cultural life of the community".
Has a serious project ever been built on a more rickety financial basis than that? In the event, as we foretold, the money coming from these sources has been hopelessly insufficient, and unless the Government intervene the stations will undoubtedly grind to a halt.
We are told on page 6 of the pamphlet that the eight stations have proved "viable". My dictionary defines viable as "capable of living". But living on what? Apparently no lessons have been learned. Forty of these viable stations have been thrust on the Postmaster-General with no visible means of support. He is simply told on page 10,
…we will need additional revenue of £5,200,000 a year".
But from where? From advertising? Apparently not. From a Government grant? Apparently not. From an increased licence? Surely not, for the licence was increased only last January, and, as I have said, the public would rightly resent paying for a service which could be supplied free by commercial radio.
No doubt the Postmaster-General will give his reaction to this challenge. It would be interesting to know how he has allowed himself to get into this highly embarrassing position. Why, one wonders, did he not settle the matter one way or the other with the B.B.C. before it published the plan so that we could know where he stands—or perhaps he is not on speaking terms with the

corporation. Perhaps I could have acted as a go-between.

Mr. Michael English: The hon. Gentleman has made play with the word "viable" in relation to the B.B.C.'s proposals and he has twice said that this broadcasting could quite easily be supplied free by commercial radio. Would he explain how that remarkable feat is to be achieved?

Mr. Bryan: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the word "free". I have had exchanges with the Postmaster-General on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman asks one of his constituents whether he thinks that he is paying for a commercial television, he will say that he does not think that he is paying for it, except that he probably thinks that he is paying for it through his licence. He is not conscious of paying for the advertisement for, say, Daz. I believe that he would have the same reaction to commercial radio.
Having condemned the future plans, I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the B.B.C. staff at the present local stations, many of which I have visited. I said, when they were launched, that in terms of acceptability, if not in financial terms, I thought that they would be successful. I thought that they would be professionally run, as they have been, and any extra choice at no cost is always acceptable.
Frankly, I do not consider that they have produced the right sort of programme for a local station. Even without the handicap of going out on v.h.f. only, I do not believe that they would attract a large audience. If a local station is to be a significant part of the community and community life, it must attract a community audience.
The rôle of a local newspaper is comparable. For example, the Halifax Courier and Guardian appears to be in every house in the town. It has a very wide appeal. That is why it is part of the life of Halifax. This can be said of many local papers.
The same should apply to local radio. That is why it is particularly suitable to commercial radio, which demands a big audience. Hon. Members will gather from this that I do not believe that the B.B.C. should embark on local radio.
Lord Hill, in his foreword to the pamphlet, says:
Whatever else happens the public service which the B.B.C. provides should be complete, nationally and locally.
I disagree. If the B.B.C. is to snap at every broadcasting opportunity that v.h.f. will make possible in future years, whether or not the opportunity could be better taken by other means, its public service element will suffer, and I think that these plans give the plainest possible warning of that fact.
"Broadcasting in the Seventies" is particularly vague about the actual savings effected by the various cuts. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to enlarge on this. For instance, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the abolition of the English regions means in terms of cash and staff redundancies? The B.B.C., in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee, and on many occasions since, has stressed the value of the regions. If so apparently valuable an asset is to be sacrificed, we should know what figures are involved. What are the savings to be made by the cuts in drama, in orchestras and in education programmes?
It is even more vague in its references to the Musicians Union. From this pamphlet we certainly would not appreciate the formidable obstacles described in the memorandum that many of us have received from the Musicians Union. Would it not have been wiser to delay publication of the B.B.C. plans until negotiations had at least made some headway and the possibilities become clearer?
The House will also be grateful for the Government's view on the B.B.C.'s attitude to orchestras. In these days of superlative recordings, if we pursue to its logical conclusion the argument that the B.B.C. has no obligation to employ more orchestras than it needs, it would employ very few musicians indeed.
Therefore the question arises: how far should the obligation of the B.B.C. extend? If it is not required to continue its present rôle of patron to music, who is to take it on? The Government must, clearly, have a policy on this before orchestras are unnecessarily disbanded and irreparable harm is done to the nation's music.
The launching of the two-tier postal system came to grief because the Postmaster-General tried to do two things at once. He tried to introduce a price rise and disguise it with the introduction of an entirely new system.
In its radio plans for the seventies, the B.B.C. is trying to do three incompatible things. It is trying to save money, expand into the large new sphere of local radio, and alter the nature of its production to take on commercial radio. In attempting the impossible it is in danger of succeeding only in achieving a part abdication if its public service rôle. One newspaper says that it has decided to convert itself into a branch of the light entertainment industry sustained by public funds.
I said earlier that these plans are an attempt to forestall commercial radio. In fact, they are trying to forestall more than is threatened. We have proposed local commercial radio: hence the 40 B.B.C. stations. But there is no doubt that the B.B.C. is also setting itself up to take on commercial radio right across the board.
The paper talks of the pressures to maximise audiences
which a commercial system cannot as easily resist.
But these are the very pressures which the B.B.C. is showing itself unable to resist even before they are exerted. It is retreating before the ghosts of these pressures.
We all take pride in the independence of the B.B.C. from the Government. However, the Government, through their charter, lay down a general guidance about the type of broadcastng that they expect. I suggest that when the Government of the day issued the current charter they certainly were not conscious then of sanctioning so pronounced a departure from the traditional public service rôle of the B.B.C.
We on this side of the House are, frankly, disturbed at the look of these new plans. I say "look" because they are a long way from fruition. We do not know what is to happen. But if they are brought into effect, it would appear that they will alter the whole broadcasting situation. When we get into power we shall examine the position carefully and we shall reserve the right to adjust the


charter and our plans for commercial radio however then seems right.

5.8 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I think that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) for choosing this subject for a Supply day and for the moderate, as well as illuminating, way that he has opened the debate.
We are helping today to set the pattern of broadcasting for at least another five years, if not another 10 years. It is important that the public debate, as well as the debate in this House, should continue before the Government come to any final decision about this subject. Therefore, I do not intend this afternoon to make any final statement about our position in relation to the plans that the B.B.C. has put forward.
There are five general considerations to be borne in mind when approaching this subject. First, broadcasting is very young. Although the spoken word has been used by the human race for tens of thousands of years and the written word for thousands of years, broadcasting has been in existence for less than 50 years. It is a young and dynamic means of communication. It is dynamic because, as we have seen in the last three days, millions of people can take instantaneous participation in the events of our time. I am told that no fewer than 600 million people all over the world saw the landing on the moon just a few days ago. This is a new dimension in democratic participation in the events of our times.
It is also a shocking medium, because it brings home to people events to which they could have an apathetic approach but which, when conveyed into their own homes through television—for instance, events in Vietnam or Biafra—can have a numbing and traumatic effect.
Broadcasting is an educational medium also. T.V. and radio are the best teaching machines so far invented. There were those who a few years ago lamented the development of T.V. and suggested that it would have a curbing effect on the development of culture. I think they have been proved absolutely wrong. Any hon. Member who saw the civilisation programmes on T.V. some time ago will, I am sure, agree that the reverse is true.

People are buying more books than they did before the development of T.V., and they still flock to the Proms.
Broadcasting can also be propaganda, and I think that it is relevant to bear this aspect in mind when we consider the future structure of broadcasting, and particularly when we consider the proposals for commercial radio which have been put forward this afternoon by the hon. Member for Howden. I believe that this medium is so important that it is necessary for the public, and indeed for this House, to continue to take a very close interest in the way that it is used.
Nor should the medium be hogged by professional broadcasters, because there is an inherent danger that their professionalism and their specialisation could lead to an isolation from new ideas emerging in our free society. There is also a danger that the professionals can exercise an arrogance that can curb innovation and bend the public to preconceived ideas of their own, rather than allowing ideas to emerge as they would do through free communication.
I therefore believe that it is necessary for the medium to give minorities not only the opportunity of hearing the programmes that they want to hear but also of participating in the production of those programmes. I believe that this also is highly relevant to the suggestion that we should have commercial radio in this country.
Broadcasting is a medium that is owned by the whole community, and therefore I believe that there is another factor that we should bear in mind. It is wrong for commercial interests to cream off the benefit of the exploitation of such a network. Our broadcasting institutions are the best in the world. It is recognised that radio and T.V. broadcasting in this country reach standards higher than achieved elsewhere, and the variety of programmes is the envy of the world. I believe that the I.T.A. does an excellent job. There is no doubt that there is some room for improvement in that field, but today we have as the main interest of our debate the future of the B.B.C., particularly sound radio.

Sir John Rodgers: Following the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, is he saying that if commercial


radio came in it would cream off the best? If he belives that, does he think that I.T.A. has creamed off the best in television? if he does, that contradicts his earlier remarks.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am saying that the medium is one that belongs to the whole community, and it is important that the community should have an interest in the way it is exploited. I believe that we have that with the I.T.A.
The B.B.C. is recognised as one of the best broadcasting institutions in the world. I was struck by the correspondence in The Times this morning, where Sir Tom O'Brien said:
The B.B.C. is a unique institution in the world. It has added lustre to British prestige everywhere, in times of war and peace. The miracle is, not that these magnificent services have continued but that it has survived at all.
I believe that the B.B.C. is a magnificent institution, and that as well as analysing some of the proposals that it makes for the future we should pay tribute to the magnificent job that it has done and the dedication of those who serve it.
Sir Tom O'Brien says that the B.B.C. is the Cinderella. I do not know whether I agree with him on that. This matron of nearly 50 certainly has many admirers of her virtues, and dozens of Princes Charming who will rush to her aid against the Ugly Sisters.
The problems of the B.B.C. are financial, and I want to come to these immediately because I think that they should be put frankly before the House. The B.B.C.'s costs are going up. The demands for its services are going up, and there is no automatic increase in its income. The financial results for 1968–69 will show a gross licence revenue of about £86 million, of which less than 5 per cent. is for sound-only fees, at about £4 million. When the G.P.O.'s expenses of about £5 million are deducted—and of that £5 million about £1½ million would be saved if the sound-only fee were abolished—the B.B.C.'s net income in the last financial year is about £81 million. Expenditure on radio was about £22 million and on T.V. about £64 million. When other income of about £½ million cones into the account, the deficit for last year lies between £4 million and £5 million.
Financially, the position of the B.B.C. becomes progressively worse as its costs

continue to rise, and its income does not continue to rise at the same rate as before because, as the hon. Member for Howden said, we have reached a certain plateau in the number of T.V. fees, although we can expect in a few years' time the number of colour T.V. fees to go up considerably, which will produce a rising income for the B.B.C.
What are the solutions to the problem? I believe that there are six, although one can have a mixture of them. The first is to cut down on the programmes. The second is to accept advertising. The third is to increase the fee. The fourth is to increase the other sources of income of the B.B.C., such as for the selling of T.V. programmes to the United States. The fifth is to increase efficiency, and the sixth is to counter evasion. Evasion of payment, particularly of T.V. fees, is still a very serious drag on the income of the B.B.C., and costs about £7½ million a year.
I should like to deal with each of those suggestions. The first is the suggestion that we should ask the B.B.C. to cut down on its programmes. There is enormous public demand for the programmes that the B.B.C. puts out. I do not accept the philosophy, apparently supported on the other side of the House, that because the B.B.C. is a public institution is should for some strange reason not supply what the public as a majority want. I believe that as a public institution it has such a responsibility and should cater for majorities as well as minorities.
It is reasonable that the B.B.C. should put forward a proposal to meet the demand, for instance, for pop music. This is a sensible suggestion. We should not sneer at it. But the pattern of demand not only for pop but for sound broadcasting as a whole has changed considerably. Twenty years ago there were only 120,000 television sets; now there are about 16 million. During the evening most people are absorbed in watching television programmes. The radio audience drops considerably during the evening. However, it is very high during the day.
In its prospectus the B.B.C. proposes that sound broadcasting should be streamlined to provide for the considerable demand during the day and to give the customer a certain amount of choice without trying to force him to twiddle the knob on his set in order to find the programme


that he wants to hear. This suggestion makes a lot of sense. But I am a little more doubtful about the cost-effective argument used by the B.B.C. I do not believe that it is possible to discuss the problem of providing programmes as though it were the same as selling soap-flakes. The B.B.C. points out that the cost per hour of radio is £378 at breakfast time, when the audience is 7·7 million, and £720 in the evening, when the audience is 1 million. It shows that the Third Programme costs £967 per hour for an audience of about 50,000.
It also demonstrates the fact that providing pop music is cheaper than providing any other form of broadcasting. But we should not draw the conclusion—and I am glad that the B.B.C. does not draw the conclusion—that therefore the only broadcasting should be the pop service. That is the error that broadcasters abroad, especially commercial broadcasters, have fallen into, and it is a pitfall that we should avoid.
Besides the cost of producing programmes we should also consider the effect on the public who hear them. Pop music has been called musical wallpaper. It does not command one's whole attention. It is regarded as a background. I believe that there is as much distinction between pop music and a live serious music concert as there is between mass-produced wallpaper and original works of art in the Tate. I do not suggest that the B.B.C. is anxious to cut out all serious programmes—quite the reverse—but I counsel it against following to its conclusion the logic of the efficiency experts. The B.B.C. is the guardian of our cultural inheritance, and it is one of the raisons d'etre for the public service institution that it is. If we were to operate on purely commercial criteria in broadcasting it could be as well for commercial organisations to do the job. The B.B.C. must bear that point in mind.

Mr. John Lee: I do not want to interrupt the normal sequence of my right hon. Friend's speech, but he talked a little about cost efficiency. At some stage will he say something about the reason for the introduction of American efficiency people to the B.B.C., which some of us questioned some time ago, especially as the corporation is supposed

to have its own organisation and methods and grading department?

Mr. Stonehouse: I shall come to that point in a moment.
The second way out of the B.B.C.'s financial dilemma is to accept advertisements. The B.B.C. emphatically rejects this. It fears that it would be the thin end of the wedge and that once it was accepted in respect of pop music programmes future Ministers might suggest that when the B.B.C. ran into future financial problems it would be natural for advertising to be accepted elsewhere—on television as well. I share its reluctance to move down that road. The B.B.C.'s view on this must be respected
The third suggestion is that the licence fee should be increased. I do not want to make any announcement this afternoon, but the House should bear in mind the fact that our licence fee is one of the cheapest in the world for a service that is among the best in the world. We are charging £6 for the combined fee. In most of Europe it is much higher than that. In France it is £8 5s.; in West Germany it is £8 15s., and in Norway it is also £8 15s. The Swedes pay £14 5s., and in Switzerland the fee is £11 17s. 6d. Only in Ireland is the fee less than it is in the United Kingdom. Our colour fee, at £11, is very low compared with that of Denmark, where it is £18, and that of Sweden, where it is £22.

Mr. Angus Maude: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the sound-only fee compares with that of other countries? That also seems very cheap.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. The sound-only fee, at 25s., is much lower than elsewhere. I believe that in Switzerland it is £2 and that elsewhere it is also considerably higher than it is here.
There is a case for the B.B.C.'s increasing its income from the sale of programmes abroad. Television programmes should not be made with a view to obtaining an audience in the United States. This could tend to change the character of the programmes, and we might end up with a mid-Atlantic type of programme. But the B.B.C. should bear in mind the eventual exportability of a programme without affecting the character of that programme. The B.B.C. could be


much more energetic in promoting its sales abroad. In this respect it could take a leaf out of the book of A.T.V.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the Minister think that the B.B.C. could cut its teeth in respect of the export of programmes to other countries by providing its own programme matter to the leading commercial broadcasting companies in this country?

Mr. Stonehouse: I believe that the case made out for commercial radio in Britain is a very thin one. I would not support it. Therefore, I do not believe that there should be an opportunity for the B.B.C. to provide material on the lines suggested.
I now come to the question of increasing efficiency. The B.B.C. was very wise to bring in outside consultants to investigate the way in which it ran its business. Many successful organisations have been able to learn a lot from the use of consultants. I believe that the B.B.C. has been in that position. I have seen the detailed reports of the McKinsey consultants, and I was very impressed with the job that they have done. In terms of productivity improvements the B.B.C. expects to save about £5 million during the next four or five years.
But cost-effectiveness contains certain inherent dangers. As I have found in the G.P.O., there is the danger that in the case of a social service that must, as a public responsibility, be continued—such as delivering mail to the remote islands at considerable expense—a lack of efficiency is induced elsewhere in the set-up. I believe that the B.B.C. could well have suffered from this in the past. Because of its public service responsibilities, it has become in some parts of its organisation flabby and inefficient in its approach. I believe that is being put right and that there will be considerable savings from increasing efficiency in the next few years.
I very much disagree, however, with the development of thought in the B.B.C. about patronage. I see a certain equivocation in the approach to this matter. I saw an article by the Director-General in the last edition of Crossbow, for instance, in which, in replying to questions, he said:
It seems to me when you ask a question about patronage you must also ask the ques-

tion how far is it right for the licence fee for radio to be used for the purposes of patronage when the patronage itself is not essential to the broadcasting service. This is the kind of question one has to consider.
I find myself rather frightened by those words. If we relate the patronage function merely to the broadcasting requirement, we find that there is a lot of sense in the disbandment of the orchestras and a lot of sense in cutting back on a great many of the activities that the B.B.C. now does. If it is related merely to its commercial cost-effective responsibilities, this is a dangerous road indeed and it throws into question the whole matter of the public service concept. I counsel the B.B.C. against that.
If the B.B.C. were to abolish the orchestras on the lines suggested, it could save millions of pounds a year and increase canned music. I recognise that there is a case for needle time being increased. It is lower than in some countries, but I believe, as a listener, that there is more enjoyment in listening to a live concert, even if it is not technically perfect, than in hearing a recording. There is, even if remote, some audience participation, and I believe the B.B.C. should look again at the proposals it has put forward for disbanding orchestras. It should look at the suggestions made by Yehudi Menuhin for repositioning them so that they can play a more effective part in the cultural activities of the times in which they are based.
I have set out some of the solutions to the problem of financing the B.B.C. I shall, of course, pay very close attention to any other suggestions that are brought forward because we must weigh up the considerations here before any final decision is made.
There is also the problem of how the local radio developments will be financed if we allow the extension of the experiment that has been conducted with very great success during the past year or so.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? The White Paper on page 6 refers to the B.B.C. as saying:
We make no claim for monopoly.
That means, surely, that the B.B.C. accepts competition from commercial radio. Is the right hon. Gentleman in agreement with that?

Mr. Stonehouse: I shall be coming on to that point. I believe that commercialism will tend to lower standards, and I do not support it.
I was coming on to discuss the radio experiment, which we have debated in the House before, and on which I have consulted every Member of the House whose constituency has been affected by it. I should like to express my thanks to them for replying to my request for their reactions. It has been extremely helpful to have their views about the results of this experiment. There is no doubt that the experiment has been a very great success. A very real demand for local community broadcasting has been shown. The sale of v.h.f. sets in the towns of the experiment have gone up. There has been a very great deal of local participation. It has opened up new means of communication. Each of the stations has been broadcasting material produced on the spot for about 48 hours a week and the total audience has reached 1 million. I believe that this is a significant figure, bearing in mind that the experiment has so far been restricted to only eight towns.
I reject the commercialism that is propounded from the other side of the House because I do not believe the public want their radio spoilt by high-pitch advertising. I think that it would tend to pander to the lowest common denominator of demand and would produce a great deal of mush—a word, I may say, that I have extracted from a speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who used it in describing the pirate experience some time ago. I believe we should have a lot of mush here if the commercial radio which is being propounded from the other side of the House were allowed to be developed in Britain.
I believe also that commercialism would militate against local participation. Certainly if we had 100 broadcasting stations, as suggested, these could he viable on the basis of continuous canned pop music, and the possibility of local participation would be very low indeed. Fourth, if we had local advertising on the radio this would tend to drain advertising from the Press in the localities and tend to undermine their economic viability.
I have had an opportunity in the last year of consulting a great many interests on this subject. One of the most significant contacts I have had has been with the representatives of the municipalities which themselves have been involved in the experiment. When I saw them, one one of them put forward commercial advertising as the way to finance the development of this service. I believe that is extremely significant, and I believe that their point of view would be supported by the majority of municipalities in Britain. I know that a small number of them favour commercial broadcasting, believing that it will give them some sort of an income. I believe they are gravely misled in that respect. The majority of municipalities would not welcome commercialism in their localities.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "mush". He will appreciate, of course, the tremendous distinction here. The pirates were operating illegally and all the "mush" they broadcast was copyright free, whereas the sort of commercial radio that we advocate would be wholly different.

Mr. Stonehouse: I very much doubt whether that would be the case. A commercial broadcaster is anxious to maximise the audience because the advertising rates depend on it. He would, therefore, tend to play the material that will attract the highest possible public, and this tends, as the pirates discovered, to be mush.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: I propose not to give way again. As time is restricted, I think that I should be allowed to conclude my speech.
The B.B.C. put forward plans for 40 radio stations established in England. I believe that it has got its priorities slightly wrong and that it is important to bear in mind the needs of Wales and Scotland as well. I should like to discuss with it further, and also with some of the other interests involved, the way in which this proposal could be financed.
Debates about broadcasting will go on. It is an immense subject. There are new developments in technology also which affect it, developments which perhaps are not yet invented. There is,


for instance, electronic video-recording, which will have an immense impact on the way in which we use our T.V. sets. There will be improvements in v.h.f. and u.h.f. which will affect the quality and scale of broadcasting of the future. I believe that there are many other considerations which we can bear in mind, and this debate is only a contribution to the great debate which must continue.
Finally, we should remember that this country has an immense investment in broadcasting. The consumers have equipped themselves in their own homes to the tune of over £1,000 million in equipment. They are also paying rentals of up to £100 a year. It is partly our responsibility and the responsibility of the broadcasting institutions to ensure that the public get the value for the money which they are investing—and this includes the minorities as well as the majority.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. In view of the very large number of hon. Members wishing to take part and the limited amount of time remaining, I would ask for the cooperation of all right hon. and hon. Members in keeping their speeches short.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I agree with the Postmaster-General that this is an important debate. It is important because we are not really discussing the B.B.C.'s Music Programme or local sound radio, or the B.B.C.'s recent paper on its own future. What we are discussing today is the future of the B.B.C. itself. We are not simply discussing, critically, as everyone else has been doing, with a certain amount of enjoyment, the B.B.C.'s plans for the 1970s. We should, as the Postmaster-General did to an extent, be discussing our plans for the B.B.C.
Two questions arise here. First, do we want the B.B.C. to remain an independent public service corporation? Second, if we do, are we prepared to exact from the people the price which is required? In answering those questions, I fear that I shall give some offence to some of my hon. Friends. There were passages in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I found myself alarmingly in agreement, but this is a respectable place

to disagree, even with one's hon. Friends, and I am fortified by that reflection.
The B.B.C.'s finances are in a mess. Like others, it faces rising costs on virtually a static income. It is by no means blameless for the financial predicament in which it finds itself. Whether it is extravagant or not, whether it is efficient or not, I am not qualified to say, but the B.B.C. is certainly a bold spender —or perhaps a bold investor would be a fairer expression. It stakes a claim in practically everything that is going—a second channel, colour, local sound radio —and this becomes expensive.
To sustain the public service image as it seeks to do, it also does a good deal for free which, I think, should be chargeable to other people's accounts. I am thinking in particular of the educational broadcasting. In addition, the B.B.C. loses £7½ million to defaulters, or we lose it for them. It is also a fair criticism to say that it may be a good spender but that it is not a very forceful salesman. I hope that what the Postmaster-General said about the value of the goods which it has to sell will not be lost on the B.B.C.
A strong case may be made out on those lines, but I am bound to add, when we are talking of this financial mess, that the blame resides largely here, with successive Governments who have resisted to the last ditch—or, rather, to the B.B.C.s last ditch—the odious task of raising the licence fee. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is relatively one of the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. In effect, we are trying to get a very good public service broadcasting system on the cheap. That is a principal reason for some current difficulties. That is partly what this crisis is about.
I accept that this is not how everyone sees it. Many have seized on the initiative over local radio as an example of the B.B.Cs irresponsibility. The picture has been plausibly presented of a corporation so determined to pre-empt our plans for local commercial sound radio that it has jettisoned its cargo, with some good cargo among it—the regions and the orchestras—and launched something which it cannot afford. It certainly cannot afford it: In its own paper, the B.B.C. asks the Government for about £5½ million to support it.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman brushed lightly aside the question of how, under his dispensation, local sound radio will be financed. We did, not hear much about that. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that none of these municipalities is very enthusiastic about continuing financial support, so where is the money coming from?
Personally—although this is not my main point—I retain considerable reservations about local radio under any dispensation. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said, the year's experiment with these eight pilot stations, in which I have tried to take an interest, does not prove public enthusiasm. It may have worked out as well as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, but it does not prove public enthusiasm and it certainly does not prove financial viability. A decade ago, some of us went into this and found no public demand for local radio. It has been said that the "pirates" changed this mood, but I wonder whether that is true. They established that pop music is popular, but they did not also established that local sound radio is popular.
I am not very sanguine, therefore, about the B.B.C.'s plans and I would not readily defend its 40 broadcasting stations. I am bound to add, and some of my hon. Friends will be annoyed when I do, that I am anything but enchanted with our own ideas. I will not dwell on this. It is a sensitive point. I have always thought that there was a strong case for breaking the television monopoly —what the Postmaster-General called a "young, dynamic force". I can see no such compelling principle at stake over sound radio, whether national or local, and I fear that this policy may ultimately injure quality, of which we do not have a superabundance. But I do not want to irritate my hon. Friends any further, and they are being unduly patient. It is a factor, albeit a small one, in what concerns me most—the independence of the B.B.C.
My hon. Friends have a very good answer for this—let the B.B.C. take a limited amount of advertising on Radio One, for example, and the deficit will be made up. Putting my foot yet deeper in it, I am bound to add that I am wholly

in sympathy with the B.B.C.'s thinking here—that, once one admits advertising to any degree, that is the end of public service broadcasting, and the standards which we are discussing will fall. The pressure of the advertisers is quite inexorable. So—this is much more significant —is the pressure of those who pay for the licences. That is the real point.
The fact is—and the B.B.C. and the Postmaster-General know it—that the licence fee is extraordinarily vulnerable, not because so many people do not pay it but because so many people dislike paying it, and Governments dislike asking them to pay more. The delay over the last licence fee increase of about a year cost the B.B.C. about £12 million. I expect that our Government was responsible for even larger losses.
So the B.B.C. is caught between a Scylla and Charybdis has a thoroughly unpopular way of securing money, and advertising, which, once started, as it sees it, would destroy the concept it wants to defend. That is what it fears, and I wish to goodness that some time it would state it a little more plainly.
My hon. Friend the Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan) said that it had been unfaithful to its charge of public service. To an extent, I think that that is true. But it is partly, I suspect, because it fears that if mass audiences fall below a certain point, the licence system will be challenged and the pressure to go commercial will become very strong. Some of my hon. Friends will say that it would not matter very much. Those who feel like that are entitled to their view, but I think that it would matter a great deal. It is an old-fashioned view, but I think that the B.B.C. gives us a great deal that the commercial sphere will never give us.
We all suffer from subjective thinking on this matter. Many are primarily concerned with political aspects, particularly political balance. The B.B.C. is less interested in politics than many of us suppose. I have always found that its prime interest is survival, which is a reasonable interest. The bitterness it feels about its predicament has not been lost on me for a number of years. It is the difference between a matron of 50, as the Postmaster-General put it, dependent for her housekeeping on a fairly tight-fisted and rather unaccountable husband, and a woman who can


raise her money by more vicarious means. I will not take it any further than that.
I have long thought the way we go about raising money by the licence fee to be ludicrous. It is intolerable for an independent Corporation to have to go cap-in-hand to Ministers when it wants to raise more money. What happens if the B.B.C. quarrels with the Postmaster-General, with the Government, or—it is just conceivable—with the Prime inister? With or without a quarrel of that sort, we have a situation which we are at pains to avoid with the universities, and we should avoid it for the B.B.C. There is urgent need for the equivalent of the University Grants Commission, an independent body to determine what the fee should be. That would leave the Government free as air to accept or reject the recommendations. But it would be done openly, and there would not be all that shuffling of Postmasters-General in and out of Cabinet meetings, when the Postmaster-General has to say that the licence fee must be raised, and his colleagues look at him and say, "Not today, brother", and send him away. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced that in his time.
I beg my hon. Friends who sincerely feel that to give wholehearted backing to a public corporation is to give a political hostage to fortune to reflect on, this. In other spheres, I am as strong for private enterprise as anybody—much stronger than the Postmaster-General. But in this matter I am persuaded that there are rational grounds for an exception.
A decade ago there was a strong case for re-energising the B.B.C. with commercial corporations. That has proved, in a sense, to have been the right step. Today, the need is to raise not very high standards—I am being generous—particularly on television, the product of over-riding majority catering. To that end, our right course is to restore a strong, independent and confident public service element. It is worth paying for, and it rests with us to persuade people that it is worth paying for.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: I hope that it will not embarrass the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)

if I congratulate him on a very thoughtful and courageous speech, which I liked a great deal better than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). He was right to say that the basic problem in sound broadcasting is financial. The yield of the licence is remaining stable at about £21 million a year and costs are going up. Since 1965, when the licence fee was last raised, costs have risen by 20 per cent., though the B.B.C. has improved productivity in the same period by about 5 or 10 per cent.
The stark fact we must face is that if the B.B.C. does not get more revenue by one means or another, by 1974 it will have an annual deficit of £4½ million and an accumulated deficit of £12 million. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the House must bear part of the blame, because we alone under the existing system can raise the B.B.C.'s revenue by increasing the licence fee, and it is because we have not done so that the B.B.C. has got into the present terrible financial mess. That is the basis of the proposals put forward in "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
I want to say only a word or two about the specific proposals. In the circumstances that the B.B.C. and we face, I think that they are pretty good. They are fairly well-balanced, and are much better than making a serious cut in the output. Some of the proposals are desirable in themselves. I like the proposals for local radio. The hon. Member for Howden praised public service broadcasting, and it seems to me that local audiences have a right to that kind of public service broadcast. Certainly, local minorities have a right to be catered for, and they would not be catered for at all if commercial broadcasting companies were doing it.
On the matter of orchestras, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that anything that checks the training and employment of musicians is deplorable. I support what he said, but if a considerable patronage element is to continue in the B.B.C.'s expenditure on music, we must give it enough money to discharge this function. Patronage is not a possible function for a corporation that we are keeping very short of money. My right hon. Friend wants to maintain this patronage, and he must know that that can be done only if the B.B.C. receives more money. I therefore deduce


that he is really in favour of raising the licence fee.
It is arguable that patronage belongs not really to a broadcasting corporation but to bodies like the Arts Councils. We should think about that proposition. But whether patronage of orchestras is through the Arts Councils, the B.B.C., or both, we as a Parliament must provide the necessary money. It is no good saying that we want the patronage to continue but will not allow them to have the money.
I turn to the question of advertising as an extra source of revenue. Some of the proposals are that the B.B.C. should take advertising, particularly on Radio One, or that independent companies should be set up for local broadcasting or broadcasting elsewhere. One thing that has not been realised is that if the B.B.C. took advertising on Radio One it would not raise anything like enough revenue. It would raise £1 million or £2 million a year at the most, and the price, as the right hon. Member for Ashford said, would be appalling. Advertising would spread very quickly to the whole of the public service, or at any rate sound broadcasting, because once the Government and Parliament have a relatively easy alternative to raising the licence fee the political pressures and temptation to spread advertising instead of raising the fee would be irresistible. The right hon. Gentleman was right; the public service concept of sound broadcasting would disappear.
There is very little to be said for allowing companies to make local or other broadcasts of pop or whatever it may be. There would be no patronage element. Second, the B.B.C. would have to compete with such companies for the biggest audiences and would probably have to divert more and more money to that. There would be still less money for things like orchestras and patronage. There would also be less choice, for the B.B.C. and the companies would quickly discover which programmes and hours attracted the biggest audience, and there would be similar programmes on both, just as on the whole there are on B.B.C. and I.T.V. now. The only choice is between B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2. One of the paradoxes of broadcasting is that if

one has competition one gets uniformity. It is only if one has a monopoly which can afford to lose audiences here and there that one gets choice. If B.B.C. 2 were being run by a company, all three channels would be alike, just as the nine channels are alike in the United States at all hours of the day and night.
The right hon. Member for Ashford made an interesting suggestion about some kind of body like the U.G.C. to finance the B.B.C. Another suggestion is to grant the money from the State, putting it on the Consolidated Fund so that it could not be reached or voted about. A third possibility, to which there are obvious objections, is that the Government and Parliament should forgo the right to raise the licence and hand it over to the B.B.C. The odium would then lie where it should—not with us—and we should get away from this problem which is like the problem of M.P.s salaries. We always flinch from raising them. In the case of the B.B.C., when the corporation gets in a mess because we have flinched from raising the fee, we have to raise it in the end more than we would have done originally.
Other public bodies and corporations are allowed to raise their prices, subject to the Prices and Incomes Board and so on. The B.B.C. would be able to raise the licence fee by smaller and more acceptable amounts. When we finally steel ourselves to do it, we have to raise it by tremendous amounts. It could be argued that a monopoly should not have such power, but other bodies, such as the Post Office, have it. The B.B.C. is so sensitive to public reaction that it is unthinkable that it would over-raise the licence fee.

Mr. Maude: I see the force of the argument that other public bodies are able to pass on increased costs to their customers while the B.B.C. is not, as Sir Tom O'Brien pointed out this morning. Could the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on how he envisages enforcement? About £7½ million a year goes astray despite enforcement through the criminal law. Is he suggesting that it should remain a crime to operate a receiver without a licence, or would he have enforcement by the B.B.C. through civil proceedings?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I would keep that part of it the same. The Post Office


is to be a public corporation and it would continue to act as the agent for levying the licence fee as it does now and would try to catch the evaders.
If all these ideas of a U.G.C.-like body or the B.B.C. raising its own licence fee and so forth do not win acceptance, there is a simple and stark choice. We either accept cuts and changes of the kinds put forward in the document or we increase the sound licence fee. If we are faced with this choice, I hope that we find some way. I declare myself as one who favours the raising of the sound licence fee to an appropriate amount.

6.3 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I am sure the House will generally endorse the remarks of the Postmaster-General about the excellence of the B.B.C. It enjoys a unique reputation throughout the world. It is very much admired in this country. I served for six years on its General Advisory Council and I would do all I could to preserve what I think is best in the B.B.C. But that did not prevent me years ago in this House from trying to break its monopoly position.
For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I remind him that the battle was fought on the principle of monopoly. What we were pressing the House to do was not just to break the television monopoly. We wanted to break the B.B.C. monopoly. The Postmaster-General of the day did not realise the dynamic growth and potentialities of the communications medium of television. He thought that radio was far more important than television—which it is not today. He said to us, "If you take the television side and break that monopoly, we will go along with you, but more people listen to radio than watch television." I maintain my position as pure today as my right hon. Friend maintains his—I want to break the B.B.C. monopoly in sound as well as in television. I am delighted to see that in the paper the B.B C. says:
We make no claim for monopoly The B.B.C. has matched up to competition in televisioin and given equal opportunities, it could do so on radio.
I cannot understand therefore why the Postmaster-General held forth as though any form of competiton in radio would be anathema to the B.B.C. and lead to the lowering of standards.
Of course, the B.B.C. is in something of a dilemma. It wants to advance on all fronts equally at once. The Government know that this cannot be done, that there must be priorities. While sympathising with the B.B.C. in its position of being driven by Government policy into deficit and debt, nevertheless I say that it would be extremely unpopular at the moment to try to raise the licence fee for the provision of local radio. A vast amount of money has to be spent by the B.B.C. on colour television, and there is the question of the extension of hours to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. All this will make a demand for an increased licence fee without any question of local radio.
Do not let us get away from the fact that if local radio disappears and service is provided by other sources there will be less pressure for some increase in the B.B.C.'s financial resources. There will be the payment which we shall be discussing later. The B.B.C. has asked for £5½ million from the Government per annum. It has rightly suggested that educational programmes should be paid for through the Department of Education and Science and not through the B.B.C. So the pressure will be there anyway.
The B.B.C. Charter does not require that the Corporation should put on pop and ceaseless sweet music, particularly when there are commercial companies which would like to satisfy these particularly contemporary tastes. I want to approach this subject from an angle slightly different from anything mentioned so far today. Recently the International Chamber of Commerce put out a draft resolution on the availability of television and radio as advertising media, and I want to quote from it. It says:
In this connection, advertising plays an increasingly important rôle since, by stimulating and expanding purchases, it enables production to progress at the same rate as consumption. Moreover, advertising makes it possible to familiarize the greatest possible number of consumers with the advantages of the technical inventions which have been made in all fields and thus contributes to the building of a happier world.
While respecting the rules designed to protect the consumer, as defined in the I.C.C.'s international Code of Advertising Practice, advertising should be able to use all present-day information media. Consumers, similarly, should not be denied the facility of receiving news of products and services via all media.


That is enough to show what I have in mind. The resolution says:
…the I.C.C. recommends that advertising on television and radio be authorized in those countries where it is still forbidden. It invites the government of those countries to seek ways of putting those media to use which, while respecting the rights of the public and the laws and regulations in force at the national level, will enable advertisers to reach the greatest possible number of potential purchasers. It also recommends that on the occasion of the introduction of radio and television advertising, due consideration be given to the interests of the other media, but recognising the need of the advertiser to be free to select the medium of his choice.
I know that the Postmaster-General is aware of this, but I wonder whether hon. Members and people in the country are aware that we are the only English-speaking country that does not have commercial radio.
As the immediate Past President of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, I say that we believe that the '70s are right for the introduction of commercial radio, and this is the view which is shared by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and by manufacturers.
Experience of commercial television has shown that its introduction does not lead to a decline of broadcasting standards. In that connection, I should like to quote the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who was Opposition Deputy Chief Whip when we debated the B.B.C. monopoly position in 1954. He said that as Deputy Chief Whip he had made sure that his political colleagues voted against commercial television, but he went on to say that today
any Government looking for money for broadcasting could consider the use of advertisement revenue without the study being bedevilled by the fears of 14 years ago. It has been demonstrated that recourse to advertising revenue and the introduction of competition do not mean the death of the public service tradition in broadcasting. It has also been demonstrated that the opening of our television screens to advertising has in one way and another brought about a vast improvement in the quality of British advertising—a totally unexpected bonus to the consumer.

Mr. Maude: Does my hon. Friend think that the noble Lord is a very good witness? Is not a Chief Whip turned Chairman of the I.T.A. a perfect example of the poacher turned gamekeeper?

Sir J. Rodgers: The evidence of the sinner who repenteth is worth a great

deal more than that of the man who was right all the way through.
The advertising agents do not necessarily advocate that the B.B.C. should devote one of its channels to advertising, although it is free to do so under its charter if it wishes. I respect the view of Lord Hill that that may lead to pressures which he could not resist and that, therefore, it is not necessarily the right way to do it. But it is possible that there could be commercial radio stations under the umbrella of the I.T.A., or a third public service corporation could be set up to foster them and to protect the public in the provision of local radio programmes. All these possibilities are open.
The figure mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) was wrong. He said that if the B.B.C. were to go commercial in one of its channels the cost would be £1 million. The best media people in the country believe that the immediate figure would be about £5 million to start with.
The next question is what effect local radio would have on other local media, a subject to which the Postmaster-General referred. The evidence from other countries with local Press and commercial radio side by side does not bear out the contention that the local Press would suffer. In point of fact, it flourishes, not in spite of, but because of local radio. I will not go into detail, but hon. Members who do not agree with me should consider the position of the local Press in countries like Ireland or Australia where they will see that what I am saying is amply borne out. The provincial Press has not suffered since the coming of commercial television. It still has, and for the last eight or ten years has had, 20 per cent. of the advertising money spent in this country, and it would continue to get around that sum.
There is a genuine demand for a look at radio as we looked at television, for radio is a most important medium of communication. We hampered printing, saying that printing could be used only to print the Bible, and we taxed it and had licensed printers, but we cannot—and I assure the Postmaster-General that I know I am right here—any longer hide behind the lack of technical resources, the shortage of wavelengths and


things like that and sustain the monopoly position of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. must sustain it as a public corporation publicly financed.
But do not let hon. Members doubt that the coming of v.h.f. opens an enormous area for expansion. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, still further technical advances are just around the corner and they will make it possible to have many stations in many towns.
That is the background to the debate. I hope that the B.B.C. will think again carefully about whether it wants to go into local radio—I do not wish to prevent it if it so desires—or whether it would be better to concentrate on an extension of hours and the provision of good colour television and the like, leaving it to the I.T.A., or another body to be set up by the Government, to deal with the provision of local radio financed through advertising.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: After the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I thought that there would be a remarkable degree of agreement between the back bench Members on the two sides of the House. Unhappily, I do not find myself on the sane wavelength, if I may put it that way, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers).
I begin by declaring a past interest in that I used to work for the B.B.C. As others have said, this is an important debate, for broadcasting clearly makes a tremendous impact on the lives of people and over the next weeks and months we shall be deciding the future of broadcasting for a period of some years. I should like later to refer to the B.B.C.s proposals, particularly those for Radio Three and the music output and local radio, but I should first like to mention the B.B.C.'s financial position, because most of its problems stem from its financial difficulties. Those of us with views about new plans for broadcasting have a duty to face this problem of seeing that the B.B.C.'s financial position is sound. I should like to make a proposal for meeting this need.
My right hon. Friend has already enumerated the traditional methods of raising revenue. The main methods are:

first, by increasing the licence fee; secondly, by direct Government subsidy; thirdly, through advertisements on B.B.C. programmes. If no other way can be found, we must be prepared to face an increase in the licence fee. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is less than that in most comparable countries. The radio licence has gone up from only 5s. to 25s. in more than 20 years. There are obvious difficulties about increasing the licence fee, but we should be prepared to say that it may need to be increased if there is no other way.
Secondly, there is the proposal that the B.B.C. should gets its revenue by direct Exchequer subsidy. The Corporation has always been reluctant—and I entirely agree with its view—because it fears that its independence would be jeopardised.
Thirdly, I fully share the view of the B.B.C. that advertising would inevitably mean that the Corporation would always be dogged by the need to go for the bigger audience all the time, and the result would undoubtedly be a lowering of standards. The Chairman of the B.B.C., Lord Hill of Luton, is already on record as asserting that view, and I am glad that he takes a robust view about it.
My suggestion is that the Exchequer should indemnify the B.B.C. against loss through licence evasion. The B.B.C. is now losing £10 million a year through licence evasion, £7½ million from the combined radio and television licence and another £2½ million from unpaid car radio licences.
The B.B.C. is fully entitled to this money. One can describe the licence dodgers as pirates who are depriving all other listeners and viewers of improved and continuing services. Under my proposal, the Exchequer would provide the B.B.C. with a sum equal to the estimated loss from licence evasion. This indemnity proposal would undoubtedly meet the B.B.C.s present needs.
It is said in Broadcasting in the Seventies that, on current levels of expenditure, by 1974 there will be an annual radio deficit of £4½ million. It is also said in the document that the proposal to set up local radio stations will cost £5·2 million. The indemnity proposal which I have made, and which would bring in £10 million a year, would cover


all of these items, including the existing orchestras.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was against a Government grant. His suggested scheme of covering the sums which people are not paying represents the payment of a Government grant.

Mr. Boston: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next words. It is clearly possible to calculate the amount of money because the loss from evasion has been worked out for many years. My proposal would enable the Government to provide money without any of the political pitfalls associated with a direct Government subsidy. I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
The calculation would be based on the amount the B.B.C. is losing—this has already been calculated—from licence evasion. In addition, the Government would have a greater incentive to tighten up on licence dodgers because the more money they recouped from them the less the Exchequer would have to provide in in the indemnity amount. There would also be greater moral blame attached to evaders because they would be seen to be imposing a burden on all taxpayers.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his plan virtually asks the Government to indemnify law breaking? If such a payment were made to the B.B.C. and special treatment were given in this case, would he recommend extending it to those who cheat on railway tickets, tax, gas, electricity and telephone bills and pay an indemnity to the concerns responsible for those things? Is he not suggesting an open-ended commitment?

Mr. Boston: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I do not want to go into the question of evading railway fares and so on, except to say that if we followed through his argument to its logical conclusion, the concerns which he mentioned would all be run down to the extent of the money that they are not receiving by the evasion of which he spoke. My argument is that the B.B.C. is entitled to this money. My indemnity proposal would be a way of getting over

the difficulty of a tied Government subsidy.
In Broadcasting in the Seventies the B.B.C. outlines a number of plans, but before coming to two specific points I want to mention it is worth remembering that the proposals in the document are so far-reaching that they are on the sort of scale that would normally arise from the recommendations of a Royal Commission. For this reason it is important that the bulk of the proposals are based on decisions made by this House.
A meeting took place yesterday of members of the Radio and Television Council of the National Union of Journalists. While I am a member of the N.U.J., I carry no brief for that organisation. The Council represents about 1,000 journalists working in broadcasting and the Union's Executive Committee on Broadcasting Matters endorsed a proposal of the Federation of Broadcasting Unions that the B.B.C. should be given the necessary finance to maintain its services at least at their existing levels until an independent inquiry into Broadcasting in the Seventies and into the B.B.C.'s rôle in the provision of broadcasting services could be conducted.
While I do not go along with the proposal that the B.B.C.'s plans should be held up pending such an inquiry, I do suggest that we have reached the stage where we need another Royal Commission on broadcasting covering the whole of broadcasting and particularly developments in television. The N.U.J.'s statement would be met in part by my indemnity proposal. It would rescue the B.B.C. from its financial difficulties. It would enable it to carry out some of its major proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and would provide that stability which would give precisely the time necessary for further consultations to take place about some of the B.B.C.'s other plans—something the unions are concerned about.
I said that there were two points in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" to which I particularly wished to refer. The first is the B.B.C.'s plans for Radio Three, the Third Programme and The Music Programme. This proposal has caused one of the main outcries about the B.B.C.'s plans. Concern about this service is seen partly by the fact that more


than 200 hon. Members have signed Motion No. 337 which aims at safeguarding the service and which urges the B.B.C. not to reduce the quality and quantity of its serious music output.
One proposal which I find unacceptable is the B.B.C.'s plan to stop broadcasting this service on medium wave and to keep it only on v.h.f. This would undoubtedly deprive many listeners of this service, notably those who do not have or cannot afford v.h.f. sets, including the vast majority of car radio owners because these instruments are not equipped to receive v.h.f.
The B.B.C. proposes to made Radio Four a mainly speech programme, with the emphasis on news and topical events. People who get their serious music mainly on Radio Four would have to rely on Radio Three, and without v.h.f. sets they would not be able to get it. It is said that a higher proportion of Radio Three music listeners have v.h.f.—the figure quoted is 60 per cent. —compared with Radio Four, the figure for which is given as between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent.
The argument, therefore, is that a smaller number would be affected by putting Radio Three on v.h.f. only. However, this is a misleading argument because the larger number and higher proportion of Radio Four music listeners without v.h.f. would not get Radio Three, anyway.
Further, the extent to which people use v.h.f. sets is an interesting question to consider. My wife mentioned to me the other day that many people with v.h.f. sets in, for example, their living rooms—this particularly applies to housewives—carry about portable radios from room to room when doing their housework and so on, and these instruments are not equipped with v.h.f. Thus, if one is quoting figures in this connection one must quote not merely the bare proportions but the extent to which people are using their v.h.f. sets.
The B.B.C. points out that there is a choice between using the present Radio Three medium wavelengths to extend the other services, notably Radio Four, to those who cannot get them at present, and continuing to use the Radio Three wavelengths for the more limited number of listeners to that service. But by taking Radio Three off medium wave the B.B.C.

would be depriving listeners of a service which they already have.
The B.B.C. says that it would be possible to use the medium wave for Radio Three during the day time, pointing out that in the evening medium wave reception is poor in parts of the country. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and I, who recently saw the Chairman of the B.B.C. and others, were interested in this what one might call half-way house suggestion. This would be help. We agreed, however, that it would still not meet the need.
The proposal to drop Radio Three from medium wave would represent a retrograde step. After all, there is a duty on the B.B.C. to maintain this service and one must not forget the disabled, the blind and organisations like Wireless for the Blind which would have to replace their existing sets with those capable of receiving v.h.f. at a considerable cost.
The B.B.C.'s decision not to close down Radio Three was welcome. There is no doubt that the B.B.C. is the finest broadcasting service in the world. The B.B.C. has also seen a vast growth in the number of people who appreciate serious music, partly as a result of its efforts. There has been a steady growth in demand for this output over the years. This is clear from the increase in the B.B.C.'s serious music output. In 1963–64, the total of serious music hours was 3,455. In 1967–68, the last year for which figures are available, the total was 5,749 hours. Far from reducing or even simply maintaining this coverage, it needs to be further developed to meet growing demand.
I should like to make a passing reference to the B.B.C.'s orchestras. I was glad to hear the view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General today. Others will no doubt deal with this matter in greater detail. I should feel less justified in criticising the proposed orchestra cuts if I had not put forward a proposal for financing the B.B.C. Many of us have been distressed by the proposal to disband some of these fine orchestras and the B.B.C. chorus, some of which have achieved international reputation. There is also the position of the devoted staff of these orchestras.
I was particularly surprised by the proposal to disband the Training


Orchestra, especially as the B.B.C. has praised it in its own publications. In describing the training orchestra, the latest B.B.C. Handbook for 1969 points out that it was set up
at the beginning of 1966 for the specific purpose of training qualified young musicians aged 18 to 26 and to provide extensive orchestral experience immediately following an instrumentalist's course at a school of music. It is hoped through the establishment of this orchestra to ensure a steady stream of experienced players of the standard required by the leading orchestras in the United Kingdom.
What was worth putting in the B.B.C's Handbook which came out in January this year is worth repeating and continuing now.
I wish to mention the B.B.C's proposals for local radio stations and regions, particularly from the point of view of local radio, because this is the biggest single advance now open in radio. I am among those who feel that the existing regional set-up has been long outdated because it coincides neither with regional community interests nor with the new economic regions being created. The B.B.C. is right to tackle this admittedly very difficult problem.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will allow the B.B.C. to go ahead in the very near future with local stations on a permanent basis. There is no doubt that the Corporation's local radio experiment begun in 1967 has been an outstanding success. It is right for us to find out at first hand about these stations before passing judgment. It was with that thought in mind that I spent a whole day at B.B.C. Radio Leeds during the last Recess. This is a very lively station indeed. It is clear that when listeners are provided with the opportunity to have local radio there is a ready demand for it. The response from young people is particularly encouraging.
I have been particularly disturbed at the level of some of the propaganda being put out by some of the commercial radio lobby, and in particular a statement put out by an organisation called Commercial Broadcasting Consultants Ltd. with a proposal for local commercial radio run by a corporation on a national basis. It says of the B.B.C's local radio experiment that

Local radio on v.h.f. has proved a failure due to lack of funds for programming.
The B.B.C's local stations might not have excessive funds, at least at the moment, but their output has been tremendously varied, informative and entertaining. One has only to look at a brief resume of the past year's activities of Radio Leeds to see the extent of this variety. It says:
Radio Leeds, the walk-in-and-talk station, has given ear time to about 4,750 walk-in-and talkers during its first year of operation. In addition, recorded interviews, talks and musical programmes by local people have brought a huge number of Leeds people in front of the microphone. In Teenage Week alone"—
when over the whole week the station was operated by teenagers—
there were 1,000 new broadcasters. The station's first year ends on Tuesday, 24th June, and by then the small team will have put out more than 3,300 hours of local material…News and current affairs account for about 1,000 hours: sport 300; discussion 300; light magazine 600; children and women's programmes 350; education 250; serious music 200 and minority programmes 300 hours. The rest is made up of council affairs, municipal elections, record programmes, outside broadcasts and other output difficult to classify.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the hon. Gentleman is opposed to commercial broadcasting, why is he giving a commercial for the B.B.C.?

Mr. Boston: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views on other matters. But we should take pride in the achievement of this public Corporation. We should pay tribute to that.
Without going into further detail, for reasons given in previous debates I am wholly against running local stations commercially, partly because of the adverse effects which they would have on the quality of output, but not least because of the adverse effects that they would have on local Press by syphoning off advertising revenue and endangering local papers, as has been made clear by the bulk of newspaper interests in their evidence, including the Newspaper Society, to the Pilkington Commission and repeated only recently.
I hope that we shall no longer hear the sort of humbug which we have heard previously that commercial radio can be set up free of charge to the public. I hope that those who have been trying


to con the public with that grotesque distortion will have the grace to drop it. They must have a poor view of the British public if they think that they are as gullible as that. Of course, people would have to pay for commercial local radio. Consumers would have to pay through the advertising included in the cost of the goods they buy.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow local radio to be developed under a reputable body, the B.B.C. I hope that the B.B.C. will live up to its reputation by keeping Radio Three on the medium wave, and I hope that my suggestion about B.B.C. finance will be of use as a constructive idea for meeting the Corporation's financial needs.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It is pleasant to hear someone speak, as the hen. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) has, so very well of his former employers. I trust that he will not take too much exception to it if I say that I hope that after the next election he will be able to go back to them and get on with the job.
Looking round the Chamber, it is noticeable that a lot of people want to take part in this debate. As we all listen to sound radio, there are probably 630 different "experts" on it in the House. I find it useful, in one's capacity as a Member of Parliament, to listen to the news, current affairs, "Today in Parliament" and "What the Papers Say". We are all "experts" in our own way, or claim to be, on the subject.
I have some reservations about the method by which the B.B.C.'s publication was handled by the Corporation. We had well-informed leaks of what was being considered, starting right back in January. Then we had considerable secrecy about what was happening. It was like the Ku Klux Klan. There was a period of alarm among many responsible bodies and in the B.B.C. regions. There was alarm among orchestras and about what would happen to the music programmes. Then we had the announcement.
I believe that Mr. Kenneth Adams' remarks in the Daily Mirror were very fair comment. He said:
The B.B.C. appears to regard the current reshaping of its programmes as an internal

matter which neither the P.M.G., its own staff or the public has any right to discuss".
It is unfortunate that the matter has been handled by the B.B.C. in this way.
The B.B.C's publication is deficient in that it was probably misconceived in aim. It asked the wrong question. To put it another way, it did not set out the range of alternative policies which might have been discussed in such a document so that the public would have the opportunity of considering the various alternatives. The Sunday Times put this very well in an editorial headed, for some reason, "Doctoring radio". It said that the first choice might have been what the B.B.C. could do with a £2 radio licence fee; the second, what it could do if the Charter was amended to admit advertising; and the third, what the B.B.C. could do given the existing licence fee and the exclusion of advertising. I believe the document which we are discussing was unduly narrow in concept. It would have helped public debate of these matters if a rather different type of document had been presented.
I turn now to the question of serious music. Many have paid tribute to the B.B.C.'s patronage in all fields of the arts, and this is in my view entirely justified. One tends to take it very much for granted but it is well worth repeating. I was very glad to hear what the Postmaster-General said about this today. He put it well and fairly.
Now, however, we have the situation that the B.B.C. appears to aim at running down orchestras to maintain Radio One and Radio Two and so as to avoid advertising. This is unfortunate. I take my own example from Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Orchestra, which was founded by the B.B.C., has done excellent work in promoting music.
The B.B.C. now says that it is "unable to bear the full cost" of the orchestra, but I hope that it may have second thoughts in the light of the helpful comments today by the Postmaster-General concerning local orchestras. Obviously, the whole question is in the melting pot, but I hope that the B.B.C. will be generous in its support of music in Northern Ireland.
Turning to Radio Three and the Third Programme, I join with what has been said about how unfortunate it would be if this programme were to be broadcast


only on v.h.f. The interest of the motorist, particularly, is important in relation to the music programme. I rather got the impression from some of the comments from the B.B.C. since the paper was produced that one was, perhaps, pushing at a partially open door in this respect. I certainly hope that a firm decision has not been taken.
A part of the White Paper which I find pleasing is the references to Radio Three where it speaks about the extension of music during the evening. I have always felt that during the evening the Third Programme missed a great potential audience for which it was not fully catering. It is in my opinion too high-brow and too narrow in character and, accordingly, it has much too small an audience.
I would have thought that Radio Three should have aimed at the rather wider audience which has grown up in the 25 years since the programme commenced—the audience who have stayed on at school until the age of 18, who have gone on to technical college and university, who read the serious weekly magazines and who read the heavy Sunday newspapers. If I have read correctly between the lines of the document. I hope that that is the audience which the B.B.C. will be aiming at more in the years ahead in Radio Three.
I think it is particularly significant that the section of the paper concerning finances is sandwiched in at the end between frequencies and music. I would have expected it to be right at the beginning of the document after setting out the problems, because it is obviously the key matter which arises for the B.B.C.
I feel that the way that we are seeing a cut-down in minority programmes to maintain the mass programmes is particularly undesirable. It was well put in the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July, which set out the matter very clearly when it said that there were three main questions to which hon. Members should be addressing their minds in these debates.
The first question, which to me is the most important, is whether we accept that the B.B.C. must not raise money by advertising. This is something on which there is a fairly clear division of opinion between the two sides of the House

although, after hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), you might consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calling another hon. Member from this side to help balance the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not take that unkindly.
The question of advertising is put by Lord Hill in his foreword when he says:
The B.B.C. unhesitatingly accepts that this implies a responsibility to provide a comprehensive service meeting the needs of minorities as well as majorities. It is convinced that it will be the better able to remain truly comprehensive and securely independent if it continues to be financed by the licence fee method and is not exposed to the pressures which a commercial system cannot as easily resist.
When Lord Hill was at the I.T.A., I did not notice that he protested so firmly about the commercial pressures to which he refers in his foreword.
I find it difficult to believe that a fundamental change in the character of Radio One would be brought about by a few minutes' advertising in every hour. Is it something so essentially British that we want to preserve intact? Would its whole fundamental character be so altered for the worse by advertising? I find this difficult to believe. It does not seem to me that Radio One is a vital part of public service broadcasting principles. If, as in politics and as in broadcasting, one inevitably has to take choices, for my part I would rather see advertising on Radio One plus a continuation of the B.B.C.'s position as a major patron of the arts.
The Sunday Telegraph poses the second question of whether we are prepared to face an increase in the licence fee. Many hon. Members, in debates in this House, may say that the B.B.C.'s is the cheapest licence fee in Europe and that compared with the quality of the programmes, the increase would be small. Against that, however, one has to put into perspective the fact that for many people an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee is a major increase in their annual household budget and would hit particularly hard elderly people who rely very much upon radio and television for comforts.
The third point which the Sunday Telegraph raises is consideration of additional methods of collecting the £10 million which licence dodgers should be paying.


I do not think very much of the proposal by the hon. Member for Faversham. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) put the objection to it very well.
I find it astonishing that there should be over 10 per cent. of the B.B.C. revenue which no Government are able to collect. I would have expected the Wireless Telegraphy Act to cover new television sets, and that the house to house cards and the detector vans would have made a substantial impact on the older sets, which are the most difficult problem. I would have thought that a new system through motor taxation might succeed in catching the motor radio licence dodgers who should pay £2·5 million a year. By tightening up inside the Post Office, and by some such methods as I have referred to we should in this House be able to help the B.B.C., who should not be denied this substantial sum.

Mr. Boston: Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to the proposals which we are putting forward, may I ask him to bear in mind that, far from condoning criminal evasion, as his hon. Friend was suggesting, this proposal will be a direct incentive to Governments to take tightening up action against licence dodgers.

Mr. Mills: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I thought his point was that this was a matter of wider principle —should it be extended for example to the railways, to gas bills and telephone accounts? I would have thought it was a matter of wider principle on which objection could be taken to the scheme put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
I come now to local radio. I tried to intervene during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as I found this the most astonishing part of his speech. He said that he had read what the B.B.C. had said. He paid tribute to the work of the B B.C. and, although at an earlier stage he had said that there would be a review of the whole subject terminating in July, all he was able to say this afternoon was that he would have a discussion about it.
He did not set out the alternatives. He did not say how his mind was working. Although he said that none of the local authorities liked the commercial principle, he neglected to say that seven out of eight have already made it clear that they do not want to continue with

the existing scheme. The House is about to go into recess and the right hon. Gentleman appears to be running away from this decision.
The B.B.C's plans for local radio are the central matter of the debate. Are there or are there not to be B.B.C. stations? Is the B.B.C. to get additional finance for it? Will there be advertising? These are questions which could reasonably have been answered today by the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members will be disappointed if we do not get more information on the Government's thinking on this matter when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies tonight.
Several editorials have referred to the aim of the B.B.C. of pre-empting the next Government by getting established 40 local stations. I do not know whether or not that is the aim of the B.B.C. I hope it is not, because the B.B.C. as a public body depends on its good relations with all parties in the House, and an attempt to jump the gun and to try to make the rôle of the next Government more difficult in this field would not be in the long-term interests of the B.B.C.
I was surprised to see chat the B.B.C. at page 6 of the White Paper referred to the way in which it had always championed local radio. I recall the B.B.C. evidence to the Pilkington Committee, in which it said that in its view there was no demand for local radio but, if such a demand was shown to exist, it was the B.B.C. who should be given the job of catering for it. This indicates a certain hesitancy of memory on the part of the Corporation.
I believe that there is still a great future for radio—radio at certain times of the day, car radio, serious music, news, current affairs, pop music for the young and local radio, but this can happen only if we endeavour to release broadcasting from the straitjacket of B.B.C. traditional methods of finance, and if the monopoly of the B.B.C. can be broken to let other minds into this exciting new medium.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: One of the major accomplishments of the B.B.C. proposals has been to bring to the forum of public debate some of the many issues in broadcasting which have been neglected for far too long. The time is long overdue for the


reappraisal of sound broadcasting which the B.B.C. is now conducting.
I am glad that in the proposals put forward the B.B.C. is now rejecting the old-fashioned concept of giving all of the people some of the things which they do not like for some of the time. That is the old Reithian concept of introducing a little culture into frivolous programmes, and vice versa. The B.B.C. is now providing the kind of programmes which the people require.
The B.B.C. has no alternative, because there is now convincing evidence that the public are not prepared with sound radio to switch over programmes as they do with television; they simply switch off. The public are at last beginning to get the programmes which they want. That is the reason why the B.B.C. has now come to the proper view that audiences should be given the programmes which they require.
I believe this is a right decision, and, on the same basis, it is a right decision to go ahead with local radio. The experiments conducted have, if not proved, certainly given a clear indication that there is a demand for local radio. People want programmes with local interest. In my constituency, Radio Stoke-on-Trent is a highly popular station and has now taken its place as an accepted and popular institution in the community, despite the limitations of v.h.f.
The critics of local radio tend to confuse local radio with the whole question of economics, and they tend to believe that local radio is a substitute for orchestral programmes and other types of national network radio. This is nonsensical, because the B.B.C. has reiterated time and time again, and I believe it, that the financing of local radio is entirely different from the financing of national networks. It is regrettable that people should still confuse the economics of local radio and the national network; the two are entirely divorced.
The economies which are being made by the B.B.C. are to a large extent to be welcomed. The economies were inevitable because in a situation of a static income and rising costs the B.B.C. is under an obligation to try to meet this difficult financial problem. What it has done is to formulate principles in advance

rather than detailed plans. I believe that no conclusive judgment can be made until the full consequences of the detailed plans are known and until a number of questions are answered.
It is unfortunate that the B.B.C. has created hostility among the broadcasting trade unions by its refusal to discuss in a meaningful way its proposals with the unions. By that I mean that the B.B.C. refuses to allow the unions to discuss these issues with their members. This was an entirely wrong decision and quite contrary to the normal methods of negotiation.
I assure the House, after 14 years' experience as a sound radio and television producer, that the B.B.C. is a highly civilised organisation. In fact, it is not only civilised; it is a paternal organisation. The House will note that I refer to it as paternal, not maternal, since it sometimes likes to wield the big stick.
In all my negotiations with the B.B.C. when I was chairman of the producers' branch of the union I found the B.B.C. administration to be a curious mixture of quite extraordinary charm and absolutely implacable obstinacy. Once it had decided what was best for the B.B.C. and for B.B.C. staff, then in the best possible civilized manner that was that. One was carefully listened to, given a cup of tea—and, if one was fortunate, a few biscuits—and ushered to the door, having gained not a single concession. But the corporation did as it thought right because it was behaving in a paternalistic way and was concerned with the well-being of the B.B.C. as a whole.
But I believe that at Present it is creating dangers for itself by its refusal to negotiate with the trade unions. I emphasise that it should be negotiation in a meaningful way. It is creating hostility, and there will be a backlash from the unions which may result in industrial unrest in the B.B.C. I hope that the corporation will think again about its attitude to the unions which are involved.
The B.B.C. has admitted that there will be redundancies. How many redundancies will there be? How many of the displaced staff will be reabsorbed in different jobs? What kind of effort


will be made by the B.B.C. to find other work for the displaced staff? These are all questions which should be considered, I do not say considered in detail at this advanced stage but considered in such a manner as to win the confidence of the unions. No other employer in. Britain, certainly no other monopolistic employer, could possibly present a plan of what it intends to do without full consultation and negotiation with the unions.
I believe that the financial problems with which the B.B.C. is confronted will increase rather than diminish. In the next few years costs will inevitably rise as inflation continues, and the fact is that growth in the licence revenue has now stopped. The B.B.C. is in a serious situation and needs to get all the co-operation it can.
On the matter of redundancies, as a former producer I hope that the B.B.C. will not fail to look very closely at its administration. It would be most unfortunate if the programme staff of the B.B.C. were to be curtailed and pruned and the long and very worthy tail of administration and the supporting structure were not to be scrutinised very carefully and cut, perhaps rather more than the creative staff on the production side. If the corporation fails to do that, programmes themselves will suffer as will the standards of public service broadcascing as a whole.
I am still not clear in my mind—I do not think that the B.B.C. has made it clear—whether the changes which are now put forward are advanced because the B.B.C. desires the changes or because they are forced on the B.B.C. by financial stringency.
Many of the speeches by Lord Hill and Charles Curran and the other distinguished leaders of the B.B.C. tend rather to obfuscate the issue by saying, "Of course the new plans are desirable, but on the other hand there are financial pressures." One does not quite know which is which. But if the corporation needs an increased licence fee it should say so. It should say exactly how much it requires in order to present to the public the high level of programmes to which we are accustomed to receive from the B.B.C. If, on the other hand, it does not require an increase in licence fee, it should state what the consequences will

be in the curtailment of serious programmes, in the cutting down of staff and the other economies which will necessarily follow.
Some people have suggested that the way in which economies can be made and the financial problems solved is by the introduction of commercial radio. We have heard eloquent contributions—some of us have lip-read them—by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the merits of commercial radio. It is interesting that these now fall into three separate and distinct categories. The first is to have a hundred or so local radio stations which have been described by some hon. Members opposite. The second is that the B.B.C. should accept advertisements on Radio One. The third is that Radio One should be hived off completely, should be able to broadcast advertisements, and that the revenue should be put to beneficial broadcasting purposes. This idea was advanced quite recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
I believe that commercial radio is the easy way out. But every single committee of inquiry, from Crawford in 1925, through Beveridge, to Pilkington in 1960, has rejected the idea of commercial radio. The basic argument against it, without a shadow of doubt, is that commercial local radio is the thin end of the wedge. The House must decide the simple issue: the issue of public service broadcasting versus broadcasting for private profit. If advertisements are accepted on Radio One, the B.B.C.s whole future will be jeopardised and, in the long run, the corporation as such will cease to exist. Governments are dependent on votes, just as we all are. Inevitably, Governments will say to the B.B.C. when they are approached for increases in licence fees, "Now that you have it on Radio One, why not extend it to Radio Two, Three, Four and ultimately Radio Five, with local broadcasting?" The pass would be sold if commercial advertisements were given to Radio One, and the B.B.C. would have no effective answer once the principle was breached.
I remember the debates about the establishment of I.T.V. I am prepared to admit now that I was wrong. I was against the establishment of I.T.V. Today I am glad that I.T.V. was established, but that in no way invalidates the case


that I am making. We were told distinctly that it was in order to have advertisements on I.T.V. because the B.B.C. was conducting public service broadcasting. That was a convincing argument to many, and Independent Television was accepted because public service broadcasting was provided by the B.B.C. Now the argument is being deployed that the B.B.C. is living in a mixed broadcasting economy. In view of that, the critics say, it ought to accept commercials on Radio One. The logic is clear and simple. I.T.V. is established and a mixed economy is created. In a mixed broadcasting economy, the public service principle is breached by introducing advertising to Radio One. Once commercials are established on Radio One, because of the financial problems attention moves to Radio Two and Radio Three, and then to B.B.C. 2 and eventually to B.B.C. 1. As a result, ultimately the whole of British broadcasting will be commercial, and the only difference between broadcasting in the United States and in Britain will be one of dialect. Minority programmes will either be dropped in mid-Atlantic or draped around midnight.
I do not want to contribute to the illusion that the argument against commercial radio is based solely on a concern for minority programmes. One of the most powerful arguments against the introduction of commercials on B.B.C. programmes is that of concern for the majority. If Radio One is hived off, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and commercials are given to the new Radio One, the B.B.C. will be failing to provide the majority of listeners with a service. It will be confining its programmes to a minority. Because the B.B.C. has a responsibility to provide pop or any other kind of programme that the majority wants as much as it has serious programmes to the minority, this argument should carry a great deal of weight with the House.
Once the argument is conceded that Radio One is to be hived off and given commercials, the B.B.C. will no longer serve the young, and young listeners will then demand vociferously that they should no longer pay the licence fee. If hon. Members doubt that that demand would be made, I would ask them to remember that in the early 'sixties when I.T.V. had

big ratings and the B.B.C. had a minority audience on television, many people were demanding that they should not pay the B.B.C. licence fee because they did not watch the B.B.C. but watched only I.T.V. That same argument can be advanced by the young once Radio One is hived off and turns commercial.
Apart from that consideration, the historic independence of the B.B.C. could be seriously jeopardised once commercial pressures were accepted. I do not believe that those pressures would dominate, but they would influence. I would regard that as a regrettable and dangerous situation. Far too few people in Britain appreciate what a magnificent concept public service broadcasting is and how greatly admired the B.B.C. is throughout the world. This House should cherish the independence of the B.B.C. Although we are all critical of it at some time or other, it would be a profound error of judgment to allow temporary financial difficulties to begin to erode that freedom.
If the B.B.C. is subject to these financial pressures and one is against the idea of advertising, ultimately one must put forward suggestions for solving the problem. In my view, the licence fee is the only proper solution. However, that provides a new problem, quite apart from the one which I mentioned earlier about the reluctance of Governments to increase the licence fee.
The problem is not only that the Government are unwilling to increase the licence fee but that the number of licences is no longer increasing. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should hold annual or biennial reviews of the licence fee so that the cost of inflation can be taken into account automatically. If that is done, a major part of the problem will be solved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject the idea of a direct Government grant, because that can involve some kind of Government control, and I believe that most hon. Members would be against that. This proposal for the licence fee being realistically assessed and automatically increased annually or biennially with living costs ought to solve the financial problems with which the corporation is confronted. It is only by resisting the commercial pressures and providing adequate finance for the B.B.C. that we can ensure that it


continues to provide an outstanding system of public service broadcasting.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House will have been struck by what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, with his great experience, about consultations with staff in the B.B.C. and about the possibility of industrial trouble. But I felt that his logic went sadly awry when he said that, having been wrong about commercial television, he was now against the introduction of commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman said that this would mean the commercialisation of the B.B.C. But it would not mean that at all; it would merely mean that a competing service would be set up to compete with the B.B.C. just as the I.T.A. competes with the B.B.C. in television.
The hon. Gentleman accused the B.B.C. of obfuscating the issue; but the obfuscator-in-chief has been the Postmaster-General. I was prepared to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not making a statement before the debate. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should not criticise him for not having made a statement. It would have made no difference whether he made a statement before or after the debate. He told us nothing at all. He made a non-speech. The right hon. Gentleman was meant to be carrying out a review of local radio and was meant to tell us what the Government's decision was to be. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) pointed out, all that he said was that he was to have discussions. This is non-government. The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to make decisions which are incumbent upon him.
Since the Postmaster-General told us nothing, it means that the debate must go back to the B.B.C.'s proposals for "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
I want to consider what the B.B.C. says in its financial statement. The essence of its case is that the economies that it proposes should be separated from the expenditure proposed on local radio. It says that these two things are not connected because the economies were to be made anyway. But that is absolute nonsense. One cannot have great retrenchment and great extravagance in the same statement

and claim that they are not connected. Obviously, they are connected. In this statement the B.B.C. seems to me to be behaving like a man going up to a very rich friend and saying, "I am in terrible financial trouble. I have no money. I am badly overspent. I have told my wife that she cannot buy any more clothes. I am cutting down on the children's food. I have sacked my secretaries whom I have been employing for years. I hope that you will be very much impressed by this financial economy. I should now like you to lend me £100,000 because I want to buy an aeroplane and build a swimming pool."
Any friend approached in that way would point out to the approacher that he had his priorities absolutely wrong, that great economy and extravagance did not go together, that he should concentrate on what he was set up to do, and did very well, and not indulge in luxuries which did not suit him.
It seems that the reason for what the B.B.C. is proposing is that it is anxious to hold on to its monopoly. We all know the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to monopolies. We heard him on the Post Office Bill talking about the Post Office monopoly with immense enthusiasm. No nun ever looked at a cardinal with greater admiration and wonder than the right hon. Gentleman looks at a monopoly. Indeed, it is not only the Post Office monopoly but also the B.B.C. monopoly which gives him so much pleasure. The B.B.C.'s attitude is exactly the same.
What has not yet been sufficiently considered is what justification there is for a monopoly. That question can best be answered by examining the phrase "public service broadcasting" Everybody uses it a great deal. I thought that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) used it a trifle more loosely than he usually uses words. The phrase "public service broadcasting" is a great favourite with the B.B.C. It occurs seven times in the first one and a half pages of the document which we are considering. It is a great mystical expression for the B.B.C.
To my mind, there are two legitimate and separate meanings of "public service broadcasting". The first is the Reithian concept that broadcasting should elevate and educate the public taste. This is what Lord Reith called a policy of


"moral responsibility". While that policy can easily be criticised and ridiculed, it certainly lent reality to the idea of public service broadcasting. In its later manifestations it came to look on life as a sort of cultural obstacle course. The listener started off listening to the Light Programme and, by assiduous application, he graduated to the Home Service and so up to the Third Programme. That concept was held by the B.B.C. until quite recently. When Radio Manx applied for increased needle time, the B.B.C. opposed its application on the ground that this would lead to an unbalanced programme. The B.B.C. is no longer in favour of balanced programmes. It introduced Radio One—and there is no balance about that programme—and in this document it goes over to the concept of specialised programmes and abandons the idea of balance.
The second meaning of "public service broadcasting" is simply a service financed by the public out of licences or taxes and not by advertising. In this sense the B.B.C. is plainly a public service, but equally in this sense the phrase is not an incantation; it is absolutely neutral. In this sense there is no reason why the public service should be a monopoly.
For example, London Transport runs all the buses and underground trains in London, but it does not have a transport monopoly. Although it is a public service, it allows the public a choice. The public can go by taxi or by private car if they wish.
Obviously, once the B.B.C. has thrown out Reith, it has thrown out the case for a monopoly. It has thrown out the baby with the bath water. Whether one agreed with the Reithian policy or not, its inevitable corollary was a monopoly. Once that policy goes, the inevitable corollary is choice. The B.B.C. is now saying that it is not trying to educate people but trying to give them what they want. If one is trying to give people what they want, why should only one body be allowed to give them what they want? The B.B.C. is saying that it will give the public what they want, but there is no reason why somebody else should not also give the public what they want. The phrase "public service broadcasting" in this sense does not seem to carry any implication that

there should be a monopoly for the B.B.C.
Indeed, the B.B.C. seems to have realised this because it has taken to adding a new word to "public service". That new magic word is "comprehensive". That word occurs three times in the first four sentences of Lord Hill's introduction. This is very much the new idea.
With the abandonment of Reith, there is no more reason for the service to be comprehensive than for it to be a monopoly or for London Transport to have a monopoly of all transport in London. With the new concept, the B.B.C. should provide what it is uniquely fitted to provide; namely, a choice for those who do not like popular programmes financed by advertising. Therefore, I do not favour the B.B.C. taking advertising. One of the genuine choices that should be allowed is freedom from advertising on broadcasting for those people who do not want to have it.
Unfortunately, instead of attempting to do what it is uniquely fitted to do and leaving out what it is not, the B.B.C. appears to be intent on doing the exact opposite. The sacking of orchestras, which has been commented upon by many hon. Members, seems to be excessive. I have received the memorandum from the Musicians Union which I gather has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
The broadcasting organisation of France provides continuous employment in its own orchestras for 467 musicians. The organisation in the Federal Republic of Germany provides employment for (when the figures were last obtained) at least 1,200 musicians. The B.B.C., with a high international reputation, and a tradition of patronage, propose to adopt a plan that would guarantee employment for no more than 279 musicians.
If these figures are correct the B.B.C. would seem to be abandoning its tradition of patronage in a wholly unjustified manner. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about patronage and the B.B.C.'s duties to protect and employ musicians.
The logic of the B.B.C.'s financial stringency, the logic of the desire to have local radio of some sort or another, and the logic of the competition already taking place in television suggest that part of the solution to the problem of the future of radio is to set up commercial


local radio. The justification for a monopoly has disappeared. On the grounds of economy and freedom and on the ground of choice that monopoly should be broken, and I look forward to a system that will provide a choice for the listeners and a choice for the performers and that will also provide minority and cultural programmes of a high order. That is the sort of system that we should aim for.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) should make a case for commercial radio apparently on grounds of choice. The comments made by some of my hon. Friends have clearly demonstrated that choice is precisely that commercial programmes do not provide, in all the experience of those countries who, unfortunately suffer under commercial systems. It is precisely the problem in the United States, where there are masses of precisely the same programmes on every channel at a certain time. My hon. Friends made that devastatingly clear. If we want choice, that is the main argument for a public service system.
I start from the belief that the major threat to our society comes from the danger of domination of narrow commercial values. That is why this debate is so important. If we are to preserve choice in the way we are to live in the 'seventies we must preserve a wide area of our lives where commercial advertising is not in control. That is why it is desperately important that the field that has already been taken over by commercialism in one form or another should be halted at this point. That is why it is desperately important that such a vital element in our lives—in education, in social matters and in every other way —as the B.B.C. should be retained in its present form. We have all heard comments made by sociologists that many of our young people receive far more in the way of education from what they see and hear on television and radio than from their normal official schooling.
The influence of these main channels is of immense importance. That is why I strongly believe that it would be wrong for the B.B.C. to open the door to advertising in any form. We have gone too far along that road already. Much of

the social disease that we fear and suffer from today is traceable to this origin.
Having said that, I agree that I face the same problem as that which other hon. Members have to face. That being so, if we are denying the B.B.C.—and if it is denying itself—this source of easy revenue we must face the other challenge: how do we ensure that the B.B.C. obtains the revenue that it requires. We must face the problem frankly. We are deluding ourselves into considering the public rejection of paying an increased licence fee a danger. We are making this a bigger bogy than it need be. I am very conscious that many people are not paying the existing licence fee. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not say more about the problem of evasion, which is a grave one. It is something of a scandal that these enormous sums of money—some people have mentioned £7½ million and others as much as £10 million—should be lost to the B.B.C.
Various ideas have been put forward to remedy the situation. It has been suggested that the Government should guarantee that sum, whatever it is, to give the Government and the Postmaster-General or his successor some incentive to claim that money back. I am far from satisfied that the Post Office is doing what it should be doing to get in that money. It is precious little interested in doing so. It has no immediate encouragement to do so. I fear that this is one of the matters in respect of which we could make a great advance. It is quite unacceptable that such a large number of people should batten on those who are paying the proper fee.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a large increase in the number of detector vans used by the Post Office? Is he also aware that the cost of recovery in this way represents a loss in terms of the total amount expended in trying to find those people who have evaded their licence fees.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am prepared to believe that, and I am not satisfied that we have gone far enough in other ways to check this evasion. We might do so at the time of purchase of sets. There are also ways of overcoming the evasion of the payment of car radio licence fees.


Simple methods are available, if the Post Office were prepared to use them, to bring in that revenue. I hope to hear something from the Minister about the steps that the Post Office intends to take in this matter.
I agree that this would make a very big difference. Nevertheless, it is necessary to face the need for an increased licence fee. The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) might be a wise one, that is to say, the introduction of some form of annual or biennial collection of revenue that is fairly automatic, which would allow proper investigations being made. I agree with many hon. Members who suggest that there is some uncertainty about what the B.B.C. is really proposing. I agree that it would have been better if the B.B.C. had said, "We put before you our two proposals. First, what we want to give and what we believe we ought to give is a public service, maintaining as we think we ought to maintain the existing services. This is what it would mean financially, with proper economies where they can be achieved." They ought to put that before us and say, "This is what you will have to provide us with if you want us to do this job for you. If you deny us these funds, then alternatively this is what we shall be driven to do. These are the stark alternatives."
It would have been better if that approach had been made. I agree with some of my hon. Friends who have suggested—the point was made by the Postmaster-General himself—that the B.B.C. appears to be adopting purely commercial criteria, whereas we are saying that the maintenance of the work of the B.B.C. ought not to be tested purely on commercial grounds. We want the B.B.C. to be as efficient as possible. We accept that it is carrying out a most important function for the country, involving certain expenses that would not be met by a commercial channel. Therefore, in that respect I support strongly the warnings made by my right hon. Friend, but the corollary of the warning is the clear declaration that we are willing to find the money. This is what we must make clear tonight.
There are many proposals in the Report that we should welcome. Coming from the North-East as I do, I wel-

come strongly the proposed changes with regard to the regions. I do not believe that the proposal to have eight regions in the future as against six is necessarily adequate. I accept that this is a part-time proposal and that it might be reviewed as time goes on and as finances become available. I know how bitterly we in the North-East have felt about the difficulty of control from Manchester of a whole northern region, including both the north-east and the north-west. I believe this has stifled a lot of initiative and fresh ideas in the development of both sound and television programmes. I welcome the possibility of that restriction being lifted as soon as possible, but, of course, this will mean money if it is going to be developed.
Some anxiety has been expressed as to whether the new proposals would mean the end of some of the very effective new developments in drama and in other fields which have come about with the assistance of the B.B.C. I hope very much that that will no be so. The new set-up of regions should ensure not the closing down of initiative but rather the encouragement of new initiative in many other areas. Therefore, some of the criticism of these proposals is misplaced, but we want to ensure that if it is to be done, finance will be provided for it.
The proposals relating to music programmes illustrate to some extent the uncertainty there must be in our minds. I accept that there is a limit to the level of patronage which the B.B.C. can provide. Even accepting the wide view about the B.B.C.'s public service duty, nevertheless it is right that from time to time there should be a review of what is being provided to ascertain whether it is of real value. I am not in a position to judge whether every one of the orchestras today would meet that kind of challenge. Therefore, one is fully entitled to carry out a review, but one has to justify any cut that is made. The Musicians' Union is quite right to direct attention to the guarantee that it thought it had from the B.B.C. about the maintenance of adequate employment of musicians. This again is a field where the B.B.C. will have to look again, bearing in mind that we should be prepared to face the financial commitments which are bound to be involved.
I come back to the point at which I started. I hope very much that this


House will make clear that we are firmly opposed to the concept of extending the influence of commercialism and commercial advertising through the B.B.C. I hope that we shall make clear that we accept a public rôle for the B.B.C. which goes far beyond the restricted rôle of meeting a market demand, and that because we accept that wider rôle for the B.B.C., we ourselves accept the need to provide the finance that is needed.

7.47 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I can say one thing at least which will not be contradicted. I shall be the only Liberal Member to speak in this debate. That means that I cannot do as other Members and concentrate on one particular aspect of the subject, leaving other colleagues to deal with the other aspects. I have to do my best to make a contribution on the whole, but within that important limitation I shall do my best to be brief. At the same time, I cannot regard the fact that a lot of hon. Members of other parties wish to speak as an acceptable reason for limiting the single contribution which will be made on the subject from this bench.
It would not be strictly accurate if I were to say that I was disappointed in this Report, since I was not expecting to be very pleased by it. But I think that, seen in relation to other B.B.C. reports on a variety of topics, this is disappointing. I believe that the future verdict of the B.B.C. itself will be that it is a disappointing report which might have been better had it not been made at all.
I accept that the B.B.C. has a right and a duty to give its views from time to time on any matters relating to broadcasting on which it wishes its views to be known, but I share the views expressed by the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that the B.B.C. should have given us a more helpful document to discuss. In many ways the B.B.C. has been doing the wrong job. I do not accept that the broadcasting coat must now be cut from some arbitrarily fixed length of cloth. In other words, we should first decide what the nation needs in the way of radio and television broadcasting and then turn our attention to the complex question of how to finance

it. The B.B.C. could have helped us by giving us a report more adapted to that particular end.
I wish to deal mainly with the regional aspects of this Report, but before doing so I want to make some general comments on various points in the Report. As I have said, it was in a way a mistaken exercise. We understand that the intention of the Report is to effect economies.
The economies which the Report recommends are almost all in programmes and there is very little about economies in the expensive field of engineering where there is scope for it. There is nothing about the conflict of interest with the Post Office over the renting of land lines as against the possible use of microwave links and, generally, nothing about economies in engineering. Also, there is nothing about major economies in the considerable public relations activities of the B.B.C., another important aspect, or about economies in administration and all the general questions which might come under the heading of "establishment"
I know that it may be argued that by the unwinding and dismantling of the regional headquarters some minor economy in administration, and possibly even in engineering, might be effected, but anyone who examines these proposals carefully will realise that this is not a valid answer to that argument.
It is astonishing that the B.B.C. should find it possible to put out a document which first recommends a cut in the number of musicians and orchestras, with redundancies of about 300, and then refers to the necessity for an extension of needle time. To put those two together suggests a lack of reality.
Third, there is a proposal for substantial changes to v.h.f. yet no recognition that the supplies of v.h.f. equipment are limited. Indeed, people in the industry believe that there may be a shortfall of more than half a million next year in the supply of v.h.f. sets and equipment to meet existing demand. If the Third Programme is to go over to v.h.f., for instance, other things have to be done if the supply of sets is to be adequate.
My fourth point is the general one which has already been made, that it is extraordinary that a document mainly concerned with economies should propose


the spending of an additional £5·2 million on providing local radio.
Are the cuts necessary? I underline the points made about the importance of getting in licence money. The point was made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), and has often been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), that if a method could be found of ensuring that the B.B.C. collected the licence revenue, many of its financial difficulties would be over. I also endorse the point made in a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the other day, about the need for the payment by education authorities to the B.B.C. for certain educational programmes. One could look for better arrangements with the Post Office over certain payments, and there are other sources of income, such as the sale of programmes overseas. Substantial savings or additional revenue could be derived which might make any cuts unnecessary.
We could occupy a whole debate with the question of advertising alone. We should all recognise that, by providing a continuous pop music channel, the B.B.C. is entering a field monopolised in other countries by commercial radio and is providing a programme identical to Radio Luxembourg, except that it does not have adverts. I do not wish to commit my party to ardent support of advertising as a source of income, but I do not turn my back on it or accept that if one wanted to introduce advertising on a continuous pop music channel one would somehow open the flood gates and would have to let it in on all the other channels. The continuous pop music channel is used to advertising and always has advertising in other countries. Advertising there would not be objectionable and would not lead to a spread of advertising to other programmes.
I would be prepared to support advertising as a source of income to finance local radio, if the body responsible for the sale of advertising time were totally separate from that responsible for the preparation and presentation of programmes. In other words, if there were an independent corporation charged with selling advertising time, totally separate from the units which made programmes, this might be acceptable. I should be

willing to discuss it sympathetically and possibly to support it if that were the only way of deriving the revenue needed.
I endorse fully what many other hon. Members have said about orchestras and the need for patronage. This is not patronage in the sense of a charity. The B.B.C. is desperately dependent upon musicians. Without musicians and orchestras the B.B.C. would grind to a halt. It must recognise this with a better grace and much be ready to pay more fully for what it fully enjoys.
Has it yet been established that we need local radio? Maybe we do, but, if we do, has it yet been established what sort of price we should pay for it, what we are prepared to do without in order to have it? I should like more thought given to this. I commend highly the work already done on small budgets, which has achieved a considerable amount in the experimental stations, but whether we can at the moment afford to embark on this wholesale extension of local radio, as a public service has not yet been established. We should not take any steps on the basis of its being established yet.
The success of local radio hitherto has been purely because it is local. Because it has been serving a narrow catchment area, it has been able to secure a degree of audience involvement and participation which is not possible in other ways. Any tendency to extend the catchment areas of local radio—this is clearly what the Report envisages, since it appears to be pushing local radio almost as a substitute for regional broadcasting—would destroy local radio as it now is, yet provide nothing worthwhile in its place.
I have been concerned about the readiness with which people would allow local radio to be financed by or dependent upon local authorities. It would be paid for by the rates and there would be local broadcasting councils occupied by eminent, reliable and good people, but people who are often members of local councils. We have taken great care to separate the control of national broadcasting from national Government. This is the reason for the B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act—to keep broadcasting separate from this place. If this is so important in a national context, it is equally important to keep local broadcasting separate from local government. The business of local radio is to criticise


local government and not to act as its mouthpiece. I do not suggest that it does so now, or would do so immediately, but I warn hon. Members on both sides, even those interested in commercial local radio provided under the control of local councils, that they should look again at this.
I am primarily concerned with regional broadcasting. Under the heading "The Regions", the Report says that the three nation regions serve homogeneous communities, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It says that the English regions have no such homogeneity and gives evidence of this by demonstrating that the Northern Region must cover Liverpool and Newcastle and Manchester and Hull. Yet it is perfectly prepared to regard as homogeneous a Scottish region including Glasgow and the Orkneys. I cannot accept that as a logical argument.
My conception of regional broadcasting is not a region talking to a region. If something is interesting from the broadcasting point of view, it is interesting wherever it happens. If it is not interesting, it does not become interesting merely because it is happening nearby. In local radio, yes—Mrs. Jones may be interested in what is happening to Mrs. Smith if Mrs. Smith lives half a mile away. But if it is happening further away, outside the community, broadcasting material depends on its innate interest, and not its local characteristics. In other words, the activities of Bolton are of no more interest to people in Bury than if they were happening in Bognor Regis.
My idea of regional broadcasting is not parochial broadcasting, but an opportunity for a region to make its own individual regional contribution to the national whole. I would like to see the Northern and other regions looking at national and international events through regional eyes and doing programmes for the national network. I do not say that they will be any better. I do not say that a programme produced and initiated in Manchester is better than one similarly produced in London, but it is different, and its difference is of a kind that we should try to protect. The regions should be able to give a regional flavour to universal themes and make their regional contribution to the national whole. I do not think that the document

provides for that, though it may provide more opportunities for parochial broadcasting.
The hon. Member for South Shields talks about distributing the resources of a region better over a region. I would accept that. If he wants to say that we should redistribute and redispose the resources in the Northern Region over the Northern Region as a whole, I would accept it, provided there is an increase in the regional resources as a whole, and somewhere in the region there is a mother or father station capable of doing the major programmes, and feeding them through to the national network. A region should be able to put out major drama on television—this debate concerns television as well—major light entertainment, and major current affairs programmes—not all the time, but sometimes. If we divide the present limited resources of the region into small pieces dotted about over the region, we destroy its capacity to do that.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the need to ensure that an area as big as the North East has an opportunity to develop its own talents?

Dr. Winstanley: I entirely accept that, and I want to see it in the regions and parts of regions.
Again, I quote Manchester, which has an interesting history, as has the whole North West, in terms of the drama, producing playwrights, actors and so on. Liverpool is now the home of light entertainment. It is important to establish the principle that people who feel that they can make a major contribution to broadcasting, whether in radio or television, should have an opportunity—I do not say a big one—to make it without having to move to London. There has grown up within B.B.C. staffs in the regions the feeling that the only badge of a successful B.B.C. career is a single ticket to London. There have remained loyally in the Northern Region talented people who could, given the opportunity, make major contributions. They have stuck it out because they expected an expansion of their opportunities and not what they now see, a probable contraction. It seems to me that in all these particulars the document points in the opposite direction to Redcliffe-Maud and I find this very regrettable.
I would quote many authorities for this, but time prevents me. I could quote Sir William Mather, Chairman of the North West Region Economic Planning Council and his predecessor, Mr. Charles Carter. To those who say that the present plan provides these regional opportunities I would quote Mr. Kenneth Adam's article in the Evening News on 10th July, when he said:
Reading not even between the lines, but actually as they are printed for all to see, this document foreshadows the end of Regional Broadcasting as it has been known for a generation and more, … there is little or no provision for England outside London to make a national contribution.
The proposal to enable the new eight centres to work up a total of 400 new programmes a year is one for local consumption only.
As for the idea of having a 'senior executive' to nourish creative talent in Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester, one wonders what the controllers and programme heads of these centres think they have been doing all this time.
The creation of a 'senior controller' representing the regions and local stations to central management is a throwback to an experiment in the thirties which failed absymally.
I quote that for the benefit of those who feel that the plan offers additional regional opportunities. I do not think that it does. Even Mr. Robert Stead, the North Region Controller, has expressed anxieties about the kind of opportunities he and his staff in the North might have, under these proposals, of making major contributions to the national whole.
I am glad that the Postmaster-General has not swallowed the whole document and said that the Government accept it all. I do not criticise him, as others have done, for not saying, "We are going to do this or that." I am glad that he did not say, "We shall do this with local radio", because I believe that local radio is one part of the whole, and we should look at broadcasting policy as a whole.
Some time ago I had the honour of opening a debate for the Liberal Party here on a so-called half Supply day in 1967, the first we had had for 20 or 30 years, when the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, then Postmaster-General, said:
There remains beyond all this the question of the longer-term organisation of broadcasting in Britain … I cannot see the present

kind of organisation lasting for more than the decade which we have ahead of us …
He then explained why he had arranged that the I.T.A., B.B.C. and relay companies' licences would all terminate at the same time. He added that with the new arrangements for Post Office reorganization
… the … Minister will be able to devote a great deal more of his time to broadcasting, and I hope that, in the spring of 1969, a long, cool look will begin at the whole system of broadcasting in this country.
He concluded:
I believe that a much more original solution than Pilkington will be required. I regard it as a supremely suitable topic for this House to rise above party politics and try to find a consensus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 455–6]
When the right hon. Gentleman makes that attempt to find a consensus, we shall be with him and shall assist him along those lines.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In speaking to this subject, I should remind the House that I am a part-time member of the staff of Actors' Equity, but what I am about to say will not necessarily command the support of that body.
Nevertheless, I would like to begin by referring to a statement issued by the Federation of Broadcasting Unions, which includes Equity, the Musicians Union, the Association of Broadcasting Staffs—the B.B.C.'s own organization, the National Union of Journalists and the Writers Guild. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) quoted from that statement, but what he did not say was that those organisations all collectively reject the B.B.C.'s document "Broadcasting in the Seventies". It is important to make the point that the unions reject it outright.
The unions' main reasons for this rejection are that the document involves a serious reduction in the provision of music programmes; involves the destruction of a number of B.B.C. orchestras and the B.B.C. Chorus; jeopardises the livelihood of the specialist staff associated with their output; and implies a reduction in the provision of drama, light entertainment and feature programmes.
I was therefore very pleased by the somewhat astringent attitude my right hon. Friend brought to it in opening the


debate. Here I share the view of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), and I found myself in agreement with one or two of his other points. He asked for some indulgence because he was speaking for the Liberal Party, and as I am taking up some of my time in giving the views of organisations representing all those who work for the B.B.C. I hope that the House will be good enough to grant me a similar indulgence, beyond the three or four minutes that I normally think should limit my contributions to debate.
The rejection which the unions bring to the document is one which I support. I think that the B.B.C.'s proposals constitute an attempt to spread the butter of entertainment and the arts even more thinly over a larger number of slices of broadcasting bread. That is the substance of the objection. The B.B.C.'s attitude comes out in the attempt to extend even further its monopoly control of sound radio. I think that, despite what is says, the B.B.C. is really concerned to maintain its rule over the sound waves and that it is prepared to accept the consequence that the quality of the products that those waves carry will be reduced as a result of that determination.
The B.B.C. has consistently refused any consultation, in the sense of participation in decision-making, with the unions whose members provide the material which it broadcasts and the means by which it is transmitted. If, as a result of an unwise attempt to implement these proposals without effective consultation, the public should be deprived for any period of broadcasting by television or sound radio, it is as well to say now that the responsibility for that would lie firmly on the shoulders of the B.B.C. because there are in these proposals the seeds of the first really major dispute, uniting all those who work for the B.B.C. against the corporation. It is as well to say at this time that the seeds are there, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend brought an approach to this problem which I think will not precipitate the sort of thing that all of us would deeply regret if it were to occur.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any negotiations have taken place since the publication of this

document between the unions and the B.B.C. and, if so, the state of play?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall be saying something of what has been said. There has been discussion since publication of this document. I say "discussion" rather than "negotiation" because I have myself some knowledge of what goes on in talking with the B.B.C. They are really more discussions than negotiations. One is told things rather than invited to express views.
As the Federation of Broadcasting Unions has said, it is not for the B.B.C. to say what the nature of broadcasting in the 1970s should be. As has been said on the benches opposite, it is for Parliament to decide, and also for Parliament to decide what shall be the rôle of the B.B.C. in the providing of these services.
If the B.B.C. suggests that saturation point has been reached in the number of licences which can be sold, then some other means of providing it with increasing revenue must be found if the corporation is not to face an annual decline in real income. In other words, a new situation seems to have arisen—and the B.B.C.'s response is to ignore it, to propose to expand the physical quantity of broadcasting at the cost of depreciating the product. "Never mind the quality", it says, "Feel the width".
The B.B.C. did not say in its public statement what it told the unions—and here I come to the point the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) inquired about—that it proposed to cut expenditure on sound radio by between 11 and 14 per cent. This means not only the music cuts which have been announced but also cuts in drama, light entertainment and features. The B.B.C.'s eight local radio stations have not employed between them a solitary professional performer even at minimum rates, and the B.B.C. has made it clear to the unions that, if it gets its project of 40 stations, they will still not employ one man or woman between them as professional performers or writers in any sector at the normal minimum rates negotiated by the unions concerned. The B.B.C. has admitted this to the unions. Therefore, where is this implementation of the White Paper on Broadcasting, what the White Paper called, in discussing the development of local radio, the "wide basis" on


which to raise the musical culture of the country?
Where in these proposals is that wide basis? Where is the balanced output of top class drama? Where are the features and the light entertainment programmes which the White Paper said would be the consequence of this spread of sound radio? These things are nowhere in the B.B.C. document. All there is in it is a spreading out over a larger area. These proposals do not fulfil the White Paper. They throw it out of the window.
Should there then perhaps be a fresh look at the broadcasting scene or perhaps the whole communications scene? It is no use having Royal Commissions if their recommendations are ignored. It was a doctrinaire Conservative Government and perhaps a not very virile Opposition which allowed the programme companies to get their hands on the advertising revenue and to keep their hands on it instead of it being given to the I.T.A. itself, which was the original intention and which was recommended by the Pilkington Report.
It will be our fault and not the B.B.C.'s if this instrument of communication is allowed to take the foolish course which the corporation proposes for itself in its document. The B.B.C. is not only a means of communication but has been a great force for good in its own right. It is a patron, an educator, an enhancer of appreciation—which is what civilisation is about and not the moon—on a scale previously unknown to mankind. Inspite of her faults, there is something noble about "Auntie" B.B.C., and beside her the commercial radio lobby looks a rather paltry group. That group seems to think that the function of this tremendous medium is to stuff people with pap so that they will never want anything better.
The Labour Party is concerned about communications. In its policy statement adopted at the last annual conference it said that three problems arise from the multiplication of the communications media. Two of them I will mention in passing—the superficiality of treatment and the question of the indoctrination of children. The policy statement said:
 … the cost of modern media services is so high that advertising revenue presents itself as central to the needs of otherwise non-commercial communications.

The Labour Party regards, in other words, the question of advertising revenue as an essential part of the whole communications problem. I think that it is well to do that. It recommended that the communications scene should be looked at as a whole, and I agree.
This the B.B.C. is unable to do, but we are able to do it, and if we fail to do it we shall betray our functions and, what is more, come to the wrong conclusions. If we take a glance at the communications wood and avoid becoming bemused by the great B.B.C. tree, we shall be astonished by its strangeness. The newspapers are privately owned, radio is publicly owned and television is a mixed economy. Each of them is equally convinced that any change in the form of its financing would be injurious to its freedom and to the welfare of society as a whole. This is possibly attributable to the conservatism of the human race but it does not make much sense. The nature of the transmission is what counts, and it is affected by the nature of the control of the ownership and not by the source of revenue.
The point is that it is necessary to set up a form of apartheid between advertisers and communicators so that the first may be prevented from influencing the second. If we make this separation and kept advertising in its proper place, it could be used for the public benefit. For example, this is done with most newspapers and certainly with the weeklies. Nobody suggests that the opinions of the weeklies or even of the major Sundays, or the major daily newspapers, are conditioned, governed or controlled by advertising, although, of course, there are certain exceptions. Generally the advertising is kept on one side and is used instead of being allowed to become the master.
If we allowed advertisers to control the medium, as in American television and radio, they could destroy it. Water can either irrigate parched land or flood it to destruction—it depends on whether it is controlled. Exactly the same is the case with advertisers and their influence.
What is wrong with the Conservative Party proposals is that they propose to hand over the medium of radio to the advertisers. That would be disastrous. We have seen what the advertisers can do when they are out of control in pirate


radio and in America. We can see on our own screens that they can spoil a medium even when under partial control, as is the case with the I.T.A.
The proposals which I have placed before the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General and which were outlined in the Sunday Times ten days ago are designed to use the revenue from advertising for the public benefit and simultaneously to reduce the influence of advertising over the media.
First, the Independent Television Authority would be reorganised. It would receive the advertising revenue which now goes to the programme contractors. It would hire the programme contractors, as was recommended by the Pilkington Committee, and as was the original and proper intention. It would be responsible for Radio One and perhaps for Radio Two and it would be a parent station for local radio. All these channels would take advertising, but only between programmes. The so-called "natural break" would come to an end.
After deduction of its programme costs, the I.T.A. would hand over the balance of the advertising revenue to the Postmaster-General. It would not go to the Treasury as at present. This sum, now over £20 million a year and growing still, the Postmaster-General would redistribute to the B.B.C. and the local radio stations according to their needs. This huge sum would provide the money solely needed in the communications media, and it would be the means of preventing the B.B.C. from going the way the B.B.C. suggests in its document that it must go.

Mr. Bryan: I appreciate that much thought has gone into the hon. Gentleman's plan. However, the great snag about it, as with so many other plans by hon. Members opposite, is money. The sum is not £20 million but £29 million. This year that sum will be paid as a levy. It is not likely that a Chancellor of the Exchequer of my party or of the hon. Gentleman's party would give up that sum. Such a chance is not a basis on which to base a programme.

Mr. Jenkins: This is the most difficult part of my proposals—getting the money out of the Treasury. But let us consider the Treasury's justification for receiving this money. It is that a franchise has been given to private enterprise which is so

profitable that large sums of money are going into the pockets of individuals and that even a Conservative Government found it necessary to impose a levy, because of the consequences of the franchise which had been given to individuals and which some of them described as being like to a licence to print money. But once the money is going not into the pockets of private companies and individuals but to a public authority the Treasury loses its justification for the levy. The authority would have to pay taxation as much as anybody else and the Treasury's argument for hanging on to the levy would be much weakened.
Under my proposal, the B.B.C. would take no advertising but would subsist on licence revenue, which I personally would not hesitate to increase if necessary, but which would not need to be increased under these proposals, because the B.B.C. could acquire ample revenue for its two television channels and for Radio Three and Radio Four, even in their present form and in their more flourishing form as they would be with my proposals for a redistribution.
The Treasury would not lightly give up the money and it would have to be a Cabinet decision, but a wise Cabinet would do well to come to the conclusion which I have suggested. The essential consideration is that the medium shall be publicly and not commercially owned. The distinction which I wish to draw is that my proposal is for public service radio financed by advertising revenue.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech, have already decided to dispense with many of the comments I intended to make so that I may keep my remarks as short as possible in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak.
What concerns me about the plan is its constant reference to v.h.f. Hon. Members will probably have raised their eyebrows on seeing my name accompanying that of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) as signatories to a Motion urging the B.B.C. not to transfer its music programme on Radio Three to very high frequency.
In its document, the B.B.C. says that there are still people without television,


or with a personal preference for radio, but that most people now regard radio as being mainly for the daytime. There are a few people, such as those who drive in the evening, who cannot watch television, but what is important is that most radios are still capable of receiving medium and long wave length signals and there is no reason why, with the technical advances since the Copenhagen Convention, most programmes now going out on medium or long wavelengths should not continue to do so. There seem to be other considerations preventing this from happening.
The G.P.O. issued a Press statement for release on 25th June last in which it referred to the European Broadcasting Convention of 1948. That laid down programme wavelengths agreed between member nations and said that if a country wished to make a change it could apply under Article 8 of the Convention for a change to be made. The G.P.O.s statement pointed out that
… the United Kingdom has never invoked Article 8 for the U.K. domestic broadcasting services
Although that was a firm statement, I had received a letter dated 1st March, 1968, from the G.P.O.—it was addressed to the Inter-telecommunications Union—the last sentence of which said:
I have to request that you will apply Article 8 of the above mentioned Convention and inform all other administrations of these proposals
I naturally thought that the G.P.O. Press statement had contained a misprint. Accordingly, I tabled a Question to the Postmaster-General asking him on 3rd July last
… whether the United Kingdom has at any time made use of the procedures prescribed in Article 8 of the Copenhagen European Broadcasting Convention for the establishment of medium frequency broadcasting services
The Answer I received was:
Yes, in respect only of frequencies allocated in the plan for the use of the United Kingdom." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 118–9.]
The mystery deepens because notification was given to I.T.U. when Radio Nicosia was brought into operation; and the name of the operator of that station is registered as the United Kingdom Government. This station was, and still is, using the same frequency as that used by Radio Luxembourg.
Far from our never having applied under Article 8, we have applied on a number of occasions, not only for domestic programmes but also for overseas programmes. One need only study the various applications that we have made to see that a lot of nonsense has been talked about the sanctity of the Copenhagen Convention. For example, one application was made for Malta and another for Halfaya. They share wavelengths with stations in other parts of the world. Right now on 202 metres there are at least 108 sharing stations.
The latest technical advances, with sophisticated aerial systems enable broadcasting services to share wavelengths without any possibility of them interfering with one another. As I have explained, this is happening now. Nicosia is not interfering with Luxembourg and Malta and Halfaya are not interfering with some of the high-powered stations in Spain and points even nearer.
If we clear our minds of the suggestion that we should not apply under Article 8 for changes to be made in the wavelength and if we really consider the technical question of the possibility of sharing, we can reach the right decisions. I am assured by the technical experts that, with modern sophisticated aerial systems, it is even possible for local radio to be operated—by of course either the B.B.C. or commercial companies—on the medium wavelength without interfering with other stations. It is, therefore, important that the B.B.C. and the G.P.O. should seriously consider this point because it could solve a number of problems.
It is said that local broadcasting goes out on v.h.f. and is a success. How much more of a success would it be on the medium wavelength, remembering that elderly people may have no intention of changing their sets or cannot afford to do so? How many listeners would suddenly be added to these services if they were transmitted on the medium wavelength?
It is also said that music programmes have a higher fidelity on v.h.f., and nobody questions this. However, if these programmes could also be received on the medium or long wave bands the listenership would be vastly increased. This would provide an alternative in that people could receive local broadcasting, particularly with Radio Three on v.h.f.


If local broadcasting can be received only on v.h.f., a large number of people will be unable to enjoy it.

Mr. Dobson: Is there not plenty of technical evidence to the effect that it is not possible to restrict local radio to medium waves and that it is very difficult internationally to control medium waves, despite all the modern advances in aerial and other propagation systems?

Mr. Mawby: If that is so, I wonder why the Post Office adopts its present attitude. Rather than argue out the technical difficulties, it tends to say, as in the Press handout, that there is the difficulty of the Copenhagen Convention and then goes on to say that the United Kingdom has never applied under Article 8, whereas I have sought to prove that it has done so on a number of occasions. This should be confined to a technical discussion. Whenever someone says, "I have a sophisticated aerial structure which will be able to form a pattern of broadcasting which I can guarantee will not interfere with someone operating another station on the same wavelength", opportunity should be given to try it out so that we do not deliberately turn down new ideas which could be of great assistance to a number of people who either have no intention of buying v.h.f. sets or, even if they did, could not afford them.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: We all have great sympathy with any body like the B.B.C. in dealing with problems such as those outlined in its publication. But I am disappointed that the various facets and alternatives to remedy the situation in which it touches and then seems to run away from are not put more starkly and clearly. There seems to be a lack of candour and clarity, and it is very much a matter of inference and implication. Only two issues seem to be emphasised, and they are made to appear to be the only issues worth troubling about. One is that there is an economic crisis for radio, and the other is that the regional orchestras are at risk. It is with the threatened abandonment of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra that I wish particularly to deal. However, before doing so, I owe it to the House, like other hon. Members, to state a view as to how the B.B.C. might try to find the necessary money either within

its present allocation and resources or by increasing its income.
There seem to be three assumptions in the publication which we are asked to accept and which are implicit. One is that local radio systems should continue to be developed. The second is that pop music should continue to be provided for 21 out of 24 hours as a public service. The third is that we should continue to pay what is generally accepted to be the lowest radio fee in the world for what is undoubtedly the best service. I do not accept one of those three assumptions.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) about whether local radio has all the advantages claimed for it. However, if it is suggested that local radio stations should be developed at the expense of the orchestras and their musicians, I do not accept it. The B.B.C.s answer to the pirate stations was to provide Radio One, which stopped the pirates, but ruined the B.B.C.'s finances. It was at that point that the B.B.C. should have dug itself in and asked who was to pay for it. I leave that argument to pass on to the next point.
Much more to the point of this debate—and here I agree heartily with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—is whether Radio One is to be allowed to ruin other well-established standards, too. Socially, it seems inappropriate to me that a public corporation operating under Royal Charter should be trafficking in the modern opium of the people called pop. I should like to qualify that by saying that I am not against a reasonable provision of it, but 21 out of 24 hours is just too much.
What really is at stake is nothing else than the whole purpose and future of the B.B.C. I agree with Patrick Huther, who wrote in the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July, when he referred to Radio One. This point is stressed by the Musicians Union, of which at one time I had the honour of being a member. He said of Radio One that
Its main hearers are teenagers who (a) are in general affluent and (b) pay nothing for the privilege of listening since their transistor sets do not require separate licensing if their parents hold a licence. Simple economic judgment might suggest charging them something.
There, too, is a source of cutting back and getting revenue.
The third point, however, is that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) when he drew attention—this is a point for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General—to the need for firm action to deal with the thieves and cheats who are indulging in licence evasion to the extent of £10 million a year. This is done by the same type of irresponsible citizen who hides behind his newspaper on the top of a bus in an effort to avoid paying his fare. My right hon. Friend must deal with this abuse urgently and effectively on behalf of the vast majority of citizens who are responsible and are called upon to carry the can either by the loss of valuable orchestras such as we are threatened with or by increased licence fees.
The B.B.C. admits that disbanding the Scottish Symphony Orchestra would be disastrous and it implies that some other body should take the responsibility. Why is it not frank about it? If the B.B.C. means to abandon its patronage of the arts, let it say so. That would mean an amendment of its Charter. If, on the other hand, as I suspect, the corporation is saying that it needs an extra subvention to continue its patronage, this is a matter for the House. Together with my hon. Friends, I would be prepared to say that if the radio fee has to be increased to do this, the people get such value for the fee which they pay that this is a reasonable suggestion.
The B.B.C. Controller in Scotland has already said that the dropping of the orchestra would be disastrous. He said:
It is high time anyway that the people of Scotland and the Arts Council carried a greater burden than they do at present.
What he did not say, however—and this is important—was whether, in that event, the B.B.C. would continue to engage the orchestra on a similar number of occasions as hitherto.
That impression was strengthened in my assessment of the talks which took place last week at Broadcasting House between Lord Hill and Scottish Members, from both sides of the House, when the term "only minimum use" was used. Nor does the B.B.C., apparently, desire to suggest an increase in the licence fee. It avoids that odium, presumably, because it wants the Government to do it. It

was much more encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, in opening the debate, say what he did about the orchestras, and we are very much encouraged by that.
The B.B.C. is getting into an imbalance. If the B.B.C. intends, as it says, not only to maintain but to develop these responsibilities, it is proceeding in a peculiar way by proposing to disband an orchestra of the quality of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra. The B.B.C. refuses to follow the logic of its case, and if further evidence of its logic is needed, hon. Members have already been referred to the terms of the White Paper.
I hope that I can convey to my right hon. Friend, to Ministers and to the Governors of the B.B.C. adequately and in measured terms the strong feelings of resentment and opposition to the proposal about the Scottish Symphony Orchestra. The services which this orchestra gives to the community, not only in the provision of music but as by-products of its presence in Scotland, have not been adequately stated.
There is dismay and apprehension for the future of musical education, the appreciation of music and the quality of listening in Scotland should this grievous prospect become a reality. It comes at a time when there is an increasing demand for orchestral music, and increasing interest among our young people and virtually a renaissance in Scotland, much of which, ironically enough, is due to the public patronage of music in the past by the B.B.C. The B.B.C. has been badly and sadly advised on this matter and must be urged to reconsider it.
The Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council has protested to the B.B.C. The Council does not accept the grounds and principles on which this proposal is based, and regrets that the B.B.C. did not seek the views of any representative body in Scotland, other than the Corporation's own Broadcasting Council for Scotland, before taking the decision.
One of the strongest criticisms is that Mr. John Noble, the Chairman of the Music Committee of the B.B.C.'s Scottish Broadcasting Council was not even consulted. Mr. John Noble is known to many hon. Members, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Michael Noble). Mr. Noble has been


one of the letter-writers to Press editors who has complained bitterly at the prospective loss of the orchestra. On Friday of last week in the Glasgow Herald Mr. Noble wrote this:
So far as I can discover, no one in Scotland with real knowledge of the state of affairs was consulted, either in the preliminary or in the concluding stages of the enquiry, about the effect on our musical life.
The Press in Scotland has unanimously condemned this proposal, so-called responsible and popular papers alike. One of the more forthright letters appeared in a so-called popular paper, and, if I shock the House by quoting, the House will appreciate that the letter was printed. This letter to the Evening Times of 6th July contains this passage:
It goes without saying that … the B.B.C. will go on handing out fantastic fees to the never-ending string of long haired gyrating gits who pass themselves off as guitarists. Few of them would know the treble clef from the bass, but they earn as much in a night as would maintain a decent sized orchestra of legitimate musicians for a week.
This may not be elegant language, but, by God, it is accurate and true.
The Trades Council of Glasgow and other working class organisations are expressing themselves strongly. The protests are coming not only from certain select sections of the community. The elevation of the mediocre and the encouragement of pop programmes are doing great damage. The impression is abroad that the B.B.C. is more concerned with counting heads than with the pursuit of ideals and that it has abandoned the previous rôle and purpose of its predecessors.
Some 500 young people from school orchestras meet together every year at Toward Castle and members of the S.S.O. become their instructors and conductors. Members of the orchestra teach in the Royal Academy of Music, and the conductor of the orchestra has undertaken the onerous job of agreeing to conduct the Royal Academy Orchestra in Glasgow. These are some of the facts.
The third aspect is that the Scottish National Orchestra will itself suffer if S.S.O. goes since both are complementary. If left on the scene on its own, the Scottish National Orchestra will not be able to carry out its job as well as it undertakes it at the moment. Employment opportunities for young graduates of the academy will go and they will be forced

to come south to England instead of remaining in Scotland. The orchestra has rendered wonderful service in accompanying choral and amateur operatic societies who are placed in a critical situation owing to a shortage of professional accompaniment and advice.
Scottish opera, which is such a recent and valuable acquisition to the musical life of Scotland, and to which so many worthy people have devoted time, money and energy will be dealt a body blow if the orchestra is lost. Visiting ballet companies at the Edinburgh Festival and the Theatre Ballet Company, which has also recently come to Scotland, will suffer greatly. The Scottish Symphony Orchestra, almost alone, plays new works by Scottish composers, of whom there are now 12 in Scotland, whereas 30 years ago there were only two or three.
The policies of successive controllers, supported in the last 15 years by the National Broadcasting Council for Scotland, have been to give two-year engagements to young assistant conductors rather than to have a visiting conductor each week, I apologise to the House for speaking so strongly, but the B.B.C. Governors must be under no misapprehension. If the orchestra goes it will be a disaster for the future educational prospects of young people in Scotland.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I will not repeat anything that has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan); in that way I hope that I shall manage to keep down the length of time for which I will detain the House. However, I should like to say that I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. He put the case extremely well. The proposal of the B.B.C. to remove the Scottish Symphony Orchestra is a matter which has disturbed everybody.
I was extremely pleased to hear what was said by the Postmaster-General when he opened the debate this afternoon. It seemed to me that he struck the right note and made clear the view he expressed, which I think will be supported by hon. Members on all sides of the House, that the B.B.C. must think again about this proposal. I refer particularly to the proposal as it affects Scotland.
The sum and substance of the case is that we cannot maintain the present most


encouraging and successful musical life which we are at the moment building up in Scotland on the basis of only one major, professional, full-time orchestra—since that is what would be left if the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra were to be abolished as planned. We could not maintain Scottish opera and ballet and the series of weekly public concerts in the main cities. The National Orchestra could not undertake to carry on the job of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra and could not get as far afield.
The effect on the teaching of music in Scotland is desperately serious. I happen to be a Governor of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill mentioned that the Academy Orchestra is exceptionally good, and its efforts will be greatly depreciated if Mr. James Loughran, the conductor of the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra, is removed from the scene. Another aspect worthy of mention is that of the members of the Orchestra no fewer than nine are teachers of instruments in the Royal Scottish Academy of Music.
I ask any hon. Member who cares to think about it to imagine what he would do if he were the principal of an academy of music teaching music students the widest possible musical experience if, suddenly, within the next year, he had no fewer than nine of his instrumental teachers removed from his classes. Who is to find fresh teachers for such unusual instruments as the contrabassoon, the cor anglais or the harp, all of which are essential for the full functioning of a modern academy of music?
It is sometimes forgotten that the removal of this orchestra will reduce by about one-third the number of full-time professional musicians engaged in orchestral work in Scotland. I hope that the most encouraging attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General will be passed on to the very top of the B.B.C., so that it is made to realise that, if it goes ahead with its intention to disband the orchestra, its action will be a clear abandonment of what we have all come to expect in the way of a pratronage rôle for the B.B.C.
We are the people who must give the B.B.C. its brief. This House must decide what it wants the B.B.C. to do. Do we want the British Broadcasting Corpora-

tion, which we have known for so long, to abandon this orchestra simply because it is not needed for broadcasting? That is what we have been told time and time again. We can produce all the arguments that we like about damage to the musical life of Scotland, but continually we come back to the fact that the orchestra is not needed for broadcasting.
Where does that argument lead us? If it is not necessary to have live orchestras for broadcasting, is it necessary to have live actors and actresses? Could not the B.B.C. fill the hours of broadcasting by replaying 20-year-old recordings of, say, "Man and Superman"? Could it not replay talks by distinguished people of the past in order to fill broadcasting time? This argument leads us down a slippery slope. The B.B.C. cannot abandon its rôle as a producer of live entertainment. It cannot take to the needle and the tape recorder and fill its hours of broadcasting at a cheap cost with recorded music, drama and talks by looking back through its archives for its material.
We must insist that the advantage of having a public service broadcasting system is that it is encouraged and has the means to produce live music and entertainment. If it is to abandon that rôle, the whole concept of public service broadcasting will come into question.
I would greatly regret that. It distresses me to be in disagreement with the B.B.C. because, ever since I was a boy, I have had the greatest admiration for it. The whole concept of the right to charge licence fees throughout the country and to give, in return, a truly public service broadcasting system is most valuable and successful, and we should be proud of it.
We are now told that there are too many orchestras to produce the music that is needed and that, instead, the B.B.C. will have more needle time. It is argued how good this will be for audiences who will be able to hear the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra and the Boston Symphony Orchestra on records. We are asked to believe that this is better than hearing our own musicians playing in their own way and making their own contribution to music as they go along.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The public will hear these records only if they have v.h.f.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I now turn to the use of records for everything. If we are to have the argument produced that it is better to have a wider choice from records from all over the world rather than our own orchestras, the B.B.C. is abandoning its production of live entertainment and setting itself up as a sort of musical public library. I contend that if we want to hear records of famous overseas orchestras and other records which are on sale, we can buy a radiogram or a record player, buy the records, and play them for ourselves. What we cannot do particularly if we live in remote areas, is hear our own musicians and orchestras and get pleasure from feeling that this is our contribution to musical life.
I should like to raise one point concerning the performance of B.B.C. Scotland. I know that the Controller has expressed himself as disturbed by the loss that he faces of his orchestra. Is it our wish that B.B.C. Scotland's contribution to broadcasting and art generally should be confined to the production of Scottish dance music, Scottish Highland music, Scottish songs and general Scottish light music? Excellent though that is, and much though I should deplore any reduction of it, is that all we wish B.B.C. Scotland to do? I believe that we require more of it than that.
If Scotland, Wales or any other nation is to have its place in the artistic and musical world, it must be able to give a full spectrum of contribution in art. It is not enough for a nation to produce its art in its own way and to send it to others. Although that is a very important function, it is also essential that Scotland should make its contribution to international art to show the world, through its broadcasting services, that it can produce a first rate orchestra to produce music of international standard as well as providing music of a very high standard in this country.
The justification for the B.B.C.'s Charter and its existence as a public broadcasting system depends upon its willingness to contribute live music and live art entertainment and to use its public service position to those ends. That is why I should deplore any suggestion that the B.B.C. be allowed to go ahead with the

disbanding of the B.B.C. Scottish Orchestra.
What is to be done about this orchestra? I understand that no final decision has yet been taken. The B.B.C. made this clear last week. I welcome that very much. I hope that that decision will never be taken. But it is essential that we know before too long whether this orchestra is to survive. If uncertainty is allowed to drift on for weeks, months, or even more, obviously the members of this orchestra will feel that they have to think about their future and we will begin to lose the best players. The Minister has spoken in a most encouraging way today, but I beg the Government to tell the B.B.C. that it must make up its mind fairly quickly about the future of this orchestra or it will begin to disintegrate.
Should the worst happen, that the B.B.C. decides that this orchestra must go—I hate the thought of that and would never agree to it—it is absolutely unacceptable that it should be done at once. If the decision is that it has to go, we must be given at least two years of grace in which to find some substitute for all the work and the activities which this orchestra provides at present. Therefore, the least that we should be allowed to contemplate is a two-year reprieve as a warning that we must replace it somehow.
Those are the two things which I hope the Minister will now try to do, but because of all the arguments which have been advanced, I feel that we must now come to the conclusion that the B.B.C. should not be allowed to do this at all.
Finally, will the B.B.C. consider the timing of what it has suggested? This is the worst moment of all moments to remove one of the orchestras from Scotland. Over the past five years, musical life in Scotland has really begun to get under way in one of the most encouraging trends that I have seen. Suddenly our great orchestras, the National Orchestra, and the B.B.C. Orchestra., have blossomed forth. Their standards have gone up out of all recognition from what they were 10 to 15 years ago. We have the nucleus of a first-class international opera company in Scottish opera. People are beginning to believe that we can produce the best in music in Scotland, and beginning to see it when they go to concerts and Scottish opera. I hope that the B.B.C


will not spoil this just when it is getting off the ground by withdrawing the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has just returned to the Chamber. He made a most felicitous and courageous speech. Indeed he made it possible for some of us to speak much more briefly than we might otherwise have done. He deployed arguments which many of us on this side of the House would strongly endorse, but I think they came better from the right hon. Gentleman than they might have done from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It will be unfortunate for the continuing discussion of this document on the future of broadcasting if the division of opinion is along party lines. There are others opposite, all of them honourable men, who share the views of the right hon. Member for Ashford, and I had hoped that there would be time for them to express themselves in this debate. I should have liked particularly to hear the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I honour him very much for the intellectual quality of his approach to this subject, and I know that he reflects a substantial measure of conservative opinion in this country.
I turn now to the speech with which the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) opened the debate. I agree with him that this debate is of great public interest and importance. At times the hon. Gentleman was slighting of the B.B.C.'s achievements, and at others he was obscurantist. In his references to the experiment in local broadcasting he was at once slighting and obscurantist. The hon. Gentleman referred to the word "viable". These stations, as hon. Gentlemen speaking officially for the Opposition ought in justice to recognise, have been exciting, stimulating, and remarkably successful. Moreover, what has been achieved in the local broadcasting experiment is in keeping with the highest traditions of public service broadcasting in this country.

Mr. Bryan: rose—

Mr. Morris: I have given an undertaking that I shall not speak at great

length. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, and I hope that in view of my lack of time he will understand if I do not give way to him.
The hon. Gentleman recognised the intimidating financial problems of the B.B.C. But his mind appeared to be fixed on only one solution; that is, the admission of advertising revenue, especially in local broadcasting.
As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General indicated, there are many other ways of dealing with the financial problems of the B.B.C. I believe that the suggestions of the hon. Member for Howden would carry little support, given any genuine measurement of Parliamentary opinion. He cleverly gave the impression that only the B.B.C. was against the idea of advertising in local broadcasting. I remind the House of the effect on our local Press of allowing advertising in local broadcasting. Regrettably, little mention has been made in the debate of the effect upon our local newspapers of siphoning off advertising revenue to local broadcasting stations.

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend forgets, inadvertently, that I referred to that point.

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend made a fleeting reference to the local Press, but if there had been more time I am sure that he would have dwelt on the very experienced viewpoint of the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists. He may perhaps also have made the point that even if the amount of revenue lost to the local Press is marginal it could nevertheless be enough to ensure the deaths of many excellent local newspapers. Marginal revenue can be extremely important.
It was a bad day for the hon. Member for Howden to speak so enthusiastically about the advantages of advertising in broadcasting. The Daily Express is not noted for its dislike of commercial television, but I notice that when referring to the historic happenings of Sunday and Monday, the great achievements of the American spacemen, it said:
It was I.T.V.'s coverage of the most exciting moment in history—and as I suspected it could not have been in worse taste … This mixture of high history and


low variety I found in the lowest possible taste. How do you match great achievement with such out-of-date humour?
In previous debates I have referred to the way in which broadcasting can be debased if commercial interests are given a free rein. Thus, I am happy that my right hon. Friend dismissed the idea of allowing advertising in local broadcasting. He said that he would welcome suggestions about how to meet the financial problems of the B.B.C., and he has already received some suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), which to some extent reflect proposals I put forward on 3rd July.
I should like my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion that whoever collects licence fees should have a cash interest in the result. The collector should benefit in proportion to his success in collecting. One of the present difficulties is that, although the B.B.C. pays £4½ million to the Government in collecting costs, it receives some £10 million less than its entitlement in licence fees. My proposiiton is that there should be a cash interest in the result for the institution which collects the fees. Second, why is it not made compulsory to produce a licence when a television set or radio is purchased or when a hire-purchase arrangement is renewed? Third, what consideration is being given to the question of grants in aid for educational broadcasting programmes put out by the B.B.C.?
Time is pressing very heavily and I must conclude this brief intervention as quickly as possible. In my approach to "Broadcasting in the Seventies" I have anxieties which reflect those of many other people who live in the B.B.C's English regions. They are anxieties about the balance of power between London on the one hand, and England outside London on the other. I hope very much that the B.B.C. will take careful note of the anxieties that have been expressed about the future of the English regions.
I had hoped also to refer to the B.B.C. as a patron of the arts and, in particular, to the future of the B.B.C's orchestras. It has been put to me by several hon. Members present tonight that we should recall what was said about the future of the orchestras in the Radio Times of

18th July, 1968, and there are those who wish to remind the B.B.C. of what they regarded as an undertaking in the statement of that date. While I would not agree that the B.B.C. Scottish Orchestra is as good as the Northern Symphony Orchestra, nevertheless I hope it will be possible to save some of the orchestras now facing disbandment.
My right hon. Friend referred to what the Director-General said in a recent issue of Crossbow. He said that the Director-General had made a rather dangerous statement in that he appeared to be concerned almost exclusively with cost-effectiveness. But if an organisation has financial problems as intimidating as those of the B.B.C., it is very difficult not to have regard to the importance of costs. What else can the B.B.C. do if its financial problems make it necessary to look at the cost-effectiveness of every penny spent? One ought not to be criticised for taking the kind of exercises that the B.B.C. has been obliged to take because of its lack of adequate resources.
My final point is that I hope this debate will continue in the country and that the outcome will ensure the future of public service broadcasting in this country.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has been unfortunate in having spoken for only a few minutes. It is, indeed, unfortunate that this debate has had to be truncated and that a number of hon. Members who would have liked to take part have been unable to do so. That is very sad, but I am certain that this is the first of several debates on this important issue.
I have no wish to be unduly critical this evening, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman how very disappointed people both inside and outside the House are that he has been unable to make any statement this afternoon about the future of local radio. This has turned the debate, as has already been said, into a total non-event. Instead of being told the Government's plans for local radio we are now arguing in the dark. Nobody knows what the future will bring forward.
As long ago as 11th November last year, the Postmaster-General said in the House:
By July next year the eight stations will have been running for a year or so, and that will be the right time, I think, to review the experiment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 171.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman now give his conclusions on the experiment and tell us what the future is? If he is not in a position to do that, what is his plan? Will he announce these very important decisions about the future during the Recess or wait until we come back in October? What is his programme? It is very inconvenient that the House has been asked to debate the plans today, for we have heard no plans from the Postmaster-General although there have been repeated requests that we should do so.
The Leader of the House said last Thursday:
… my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General feels that the statement should await that debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 886.]
There has been no statement about the future of local broadcasting. It will be a great pity if the statement is given during the Recess. We must know what the Government's plans are. The House naturally wants to know, and so do people outside the House, including the B.B.C. The people in the local radio stations must know. I must press the right hon. Gentleman. This is the most important single issue in the debate. Is there really nothing further that he can say about the future of local broadcasting today? If he cannot today when will he be able to say something about this? This has aroused widespread interest and all hon. Members are entitled to have an answer and to a debate on the Government's decision.
The paper "Broadcasting in the Seventies" goes far wider than only the issue of local broadcasting. Since its publication there has been a very full debate both inside and outside the House about the future of broadcasting in the seventies. Indeed, one hon. Member wisely pointed out that it is, of course, for Parliament to decide what the future of broadcasting should be in the seventies and what the rôle of the B.B.C. should

be in any dispositions that Parliament chooses to make for the seventies.
The first question which this House has to answer is, why should we have a public service corporation, a British Broadcasting Corporation at all? Why is it essential to have a monopoly of sound broadcasting? What are the arguments in favour of this? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) did the House a service when he analysed the two interpretations that can be put on the term "public service corporation". But surely the reason for having a public service corporation, even if it sounds a little Reithian is that it is argued that such a service can provide the old Reithian function of elevating taste and catering for minorities. Lord Hill himself says in his Foreword to "Broadcasting in the Seventies":
The B.B.C. unhesitatingly accepts that this Implies a responsibility to provide a comprehensive service meeting the needs of minorities as well as majorities.
And I think a lot of the debate has resolved today around whether or not the B.B.C. had managed to achieve what Lord Hill sets out in his Foreword.
Many hon. Members have said how widely admired the B.B.C. has been and still is, how it still probably provides the best broadcasting service in the world. I would like to add my tribute. It is unnecessary to go on at great length; this is deeply felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and deeply felt by the general public. I have considerable sympathy for the B.B.C. In its financial difficulties, it was faced with unpalatable alternatives and had to try to produce a rational plan for the 1970s. But has it succeeded in providing a plan that this House should approve? What will we get? On Radio One we will get a pop programme, on Radio Two light music, Radio Three will possibly be moved to V.H.F., the speech network on Radio Four, local stations, perhaps—if the Postmaster-General will provide the cash—and the disbandment of orchestras. Does that add up to a package which we should accept?
How will this proposal he implemented anyway? What will happen about needle time? We heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and other hon. Members about the reaction of the Musicians Union and the other unions to this proposal. It is rather


curious procedure for the B.B.C. first of all to say that it will sack many musicians and at the same time also ask the Musicians Union to make a concession on needle time in order to help it to do so. Is this a practical proposal? Will it happen? I wish that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) could take part in this debate, because we should be very interested in his views on that matter. Are we wasting our time discussing this document. Will it never come off at all? I have grave doubts as to whether it is practical at all.
The second point is that, at a time when the B.B.C. is arguing that it faces penury in the seventies, that it has to cut its coat to according to its cloth, at a time when these beggars cannot be choosers, it is suggested to us that an extra £5 million a year should be given to it for providing a whole series of local radio stations. At present, sound radio costs are about £21 million a year. The B.B.C. is asking for an extra £5 million a year, or a little more, to provide a new local radio service at a time when it is having to reduce its standards in the traditional rôle it has played in the past. I wonder whether the £5 million which has been quoted will be enough, even if it is available—and I wish that we were told whether it is to be made available to the B.B.C. from the Government. If it is, is it the right priority to spend the £5 million in providing a service that could be provided by others?
But perhaps it might be argued that that is an unfair criticism, that even if there is to be no extension of local radio something must be done because by 1974 there will be a deficit of nearly £12 million. But is that inevitable? I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that the evasion of licence fees accounts for about £7½ million a year. Is there no way of overcoming this? The Postmaster-General said that one of the things we may be able to do is to try to reduce the evasion. He did not say how he would set about this, perhaps wisely. We should be told what steps are being taken to reduce evasion. When it is running at £7½ million a year, are we seriously to take so dramatically a £12 million deficit over a five-year period? If even half the evasion were prevented, there would be a dramatic change in the finances of the B.B.C.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) produced his revolutionary plan for solving the B.B.C.s financial problems. It is very attractive for the B.B.C., but I cannot see it being very attractive for the Government. It would provide a very expensive guarantee to the B.B.C. from general taxation of about £10 million a year, and I very much doubt that the Postmaster-General will tell us to night that that is a starter.
The B.B.C. often says that this is not just a question of financial considerations but that it is in favour of the proposals in any case, and thinks that they stand up on their merits. The House should subject that to critical analysis. The paper has not had a good reception, either in or outside the House.
The B.B.C. has always been a great musical patron. Until today I thought that it was the greatest musical patron in the world, but, having read the very interesting document from the Musicians Union, I am not so certain as I was. The broadcasting organisations of France and the Federal Republic of Germany provide employment for many more musicians than the B.B.C. But whether or not it is the greatest musical patron in the world, it is certainly a great musical patron. It provides an enormous amount of music for the general public, and satisfies a substantial public demand. If an organisation is to provide so much music and satisfy that demand, it has a responsibility to music—and live music. Do the proposals measure up to that responsibility?
The B.B.C. wants to cut out three orchestras, the B.B.C. Chorus and the training orchestra, and discussions are going on with the Arts Council about a number of other orchestras. I have no idea what the Arts Council can do. It does not possess a bottomless purse. The B.B.C. might as well have discussions with the Government about providing extra cash. Lord Goodman does not produce cash out of the air, magician though he is in many ways. The Government will have to provide the cash, and if it is to be provided, that is a decision for Parliament.
Musical standards have risen enormously in this country over the past few years, and opportunities have also greatly, increased, but there is still much to be


done. There is a great deal to be done in musical education. The B.B.C. has played an important rôle in this, but the musical education system in this country is not yet satisfactory.
We need a clear study of our orchestral requirements. What do we need? What can we afford? How can our orchestras be provided and financed? We need a clear plan. Fortunately, we have a chance to solve these problems. The Arts Council has set up the Peacock Committee to make recommendations on the development and financing of our professional orchestral resources with particular reference to a whole number of matters. I draw attention to one of them in particular—broadcasting, television and recording.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the B.B.C. will be giving evidence to that Committee? Can we also have an assurance that the B.B.C. will not disband these orchestras while the Peacock Committee is sitting? The Committee is to report in a short time, and while the matter is under public inquiry it would be scandalous if the B.B.C. were to jump the gun and wind up these orchestras.
I am sorriest of all for the musicians whose careers have been threatened. Hon. Members have referred to the article in the Radio Times on 18th July, and I have great sympathy for what was said there. The B.B.C. took credit for setting up the Training Orchestra. The article said:
To balance the long term effects of gramophone record time, the B.B.C. has given a guarantee of full time employment in its permanent orchestras to at least 500 musicians.
Some guarantee! People who thought they had good and safe jobs with the B.B.C. have been sadly disillusioned. I often think that the people who criticise or who are not so keen on subsidies to the Arts overlook the fact that the people really subsidising the Arts are not this House and the country but the performers—the actors and musicians, who are over-worked and underpaid. These proposals are a serious blow to them.
Of course the B.B.C. has a right to look at its rôle as a patron of the arts, and I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about that. Of course over a period of time it is right that its rôle should be

changed if it is in the public interest to do so. But this is not the time to do it, particularly when the whole orchestral scene is being impartially examined. I hope that no decision will be taken until the Peacock Committee has reported.
I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said about the effect of the proposals on regional drama on the young playwrights and people getting their chance. I hope that chances will be available to them under the new set-up as under the old regional set-up.
To me and to many hon. Members the most objectionable feature of these proposals is the transfer of Radio Three to v.h.f. Radio Three, the Music Programme, is to me the crowning triumph of the B.B.C. for which it has won worldwide renown and acclaim. It is true that on v.h.f. one gets better reception and no interference. But most of the population do not have v.h.f. sets. There is an enormous car audience. I have heard it suggested that perhaps not many of the car audience listen to Radio Three. I declare my interest. There has hardly been a day during the past six months when I have not listened to it on my car radio. Perhaps I am a prejudiced party, but I would lay a bet that a large number of other hon. Members do the same and that an enormous number of people listen to Radio Three on their car radios.
I understand that the B.B.C. says that there is no financial gain whatever to it in transferring Radio Three to v.h.f. There is no financial argument involved. It will make the transfer on its merits in that there are other items which, it says—but not in the paper—are better entitled to be on the medium wave than Radio Three.
The right hon. Gentleman went a long way this afternoon to satisfy us about the position in relation to the orchestras. Can he say something about the question of Radio Three going on to v.h.f. He cannot instruct the B.B.C.—perhaps he can, but I am not sure that he would want to. But can he at least tell the B.B.C. that it would be unfortunate if it carried out its proposal to transfer Radio Three to v.h.f.? This change would not allow the B.B.C. to effect any financial savings but it would cause much resentment and disappointment. I pay


my tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and other hon. Members who have signed the relevant Motion for the part that they have played in forcing this issue to the attention of the public. I also include the Press and particularly the Sunday Times and I hope that the Postmaster-General will take serious note of what that Motion says.
I do not have the time to deal with the many other issues which have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) outlined our views about local radio. We do not agree with the Postmaster-General and hon. Members opposite about that, but I need not take up time by arguing that case because the arguments on either side are well known.
I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) with a great deal of respect and attention, as every hon. Member listens to all his speeches. But after the experience of local radio in other parts of the world I do not know how he imagines that we shall not have learned from the mistakes made elsewhere. I am certain that if commercial local radio is set up in this country the dangers of mush and slush which the Postmaster-General mentioned will be avoided—the right hon. Gentleman always likes to catch the headlines by referring at the end of his speeches to "squalid capitalism", or "mush and slush", or something of the kind. It requires far more time than I now have to argue the case in detail.
Several hon. Members referred to a different way of financing the B.B.C. There are all sorts of possibilities. The Postmaster-General seemed to be clearly hinting at an increase in the licence fee, at least in due course. I ask him to be more specific. What are his proposals? Is there to be an increase in the licence fee, or can he tell us this evening that he does not propose to finance any of the suggested changes by an increase in the licence fee? He gave very clear hints, and it is not unfair to ask him what his proposals are.
This will no doubt be a continuing debate. We shall have to debate the subject again when the Postmaster-General gives his decision about local radio. It is an important and fascinating topic, not

only for the '70s, but from then on. In his article in the Sunday Times, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that we should look at the whole of the communications scene as a package and not at each bit of it in isolation That is probably right. Before the renewal of the Charter and before all the changes that may or may not take place, there will have to be a major review of broadcasting.
My hon. Friends and I and the Postmaster-General all have the same intentions, although we may disagree about detail. Should it fall to us to be in office in the next few years, we shall do everything in our power to ensure the continuation of the B.B.C.s magnificent record of providing an outstanding service which the country has come to know and to expect of the B.B.C., something of which every hon. Member is proud and which we are all determined to preserve and enhance and not allow to be weakened from whatever source.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: With the leave of the House I will speak again.
This has been a remarkable debate. It has been marked by an absence of political controversy and by compliments and congratulations to the B.B.C. on the excellent job it does. The general view has been expressed that the B.B.C. is performing a valuable service.
There have been disagreements between the parties and within them about the way in which we should deal with this matter. An outstanding aspect of the debate has been the fact that so many hon. Members have come prepared with fresh ideas that they have worked out for themselves. These have been worked out with a great sense of objectivity, and this has been heartening.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on his summing up of the debate for the Opposition, and I will respond, first, to some of the questions he asked. As for transferring Radio Three to v.h.f., I entirely endorse his remarks. It would be a most regrettable development. It would have the effect of reducing the potential audience for the music programme by about 60 per cent.
It is technically difficult as well as extremely expensive—if, indeed, it can


be achieved—to install v.h.f. sets in motor cars to give good reception when vehicles are on the move. While I believe that it can be done, the prospect of its being done on a wide scale is extremely unlikely. Thus, the net effect of transferring the music programme to v.h.f. would be to prevent the reception of this programme in virtually 3 million cars, and that would be most regrettable.
The hon. Gentleman questioned me about the Peacock Committee of the Arts Council. I am sure that there will be no decision or action by the B.B.C. before this committee has considered its remit.
There have been some strictures on me because I have not given the House a clear statement of our intentions. How ever, the House must recognise that the document produced by the B.B.C. was issued only a fortnight ago, on 10th July. Several deputations have asked to see me, and I have arranged to discuss with them the implications of the announcement. It would have been wrong for me to have made a final statement on the local radio experiment before the House had had a chance to debate the wider issues raised in the announcements that have been made by the corporation.

Mr. Bryan: rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman. It was at one time my hope to be able to make an announcement about the results of the experiment. I have said that it has been extremely successful, but I think that it would have been a mistake to have reached a final decision about an extension of the experiment before the views of the House had been expressed.

Mr. Bryan: We have expressed surprise at the lack of a statement in view of what the Leader of the House said last Thursday when he commented, after pointing out that it was an important subject:
…my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General feels that the statement should await that debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 886.]
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to this debate. That is why we expected a statement today.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have made a statement applauding the results of the experiment. What I have sought from this debate and what I think I have obtained is some guidance from the House as to how this experiment should be financed. I agree that there is not a unanimous view on this. Some believe that advertising is the way to develop the service. Others are prepared to grasp the problem of increasing the fee, and strong arguments have been adduced for doing that.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) talked about the leaks of the B.B.C. proposals. He is less than fair to the corporation, because during the process of debating and discussing the proposals internally there were found to be some leaks and it would have been quite wrong of the higher executives of the B.B.C. to have made public announcements about their proposals before the advisory committees had been consulted and other internal discussions had taken place. They have behaved in an entirely proper way. As they made clear, these are proposals, and they are prepared to respond to the points of view of the public and of the House. There cannot be any complaint about the way in which the corporation has brought forward its proposals.
As the House appreciates, the B.B.C. is in a very difficult dilemma. It has these demands put upon it to run certain services, and its financial restrictions are enormous. A number of suggestions have been made in the debate about how this matter should be dealt with. I was particularly pleased to hear various proposals for dealing with evasion. I applaud some of the suggestions, although the idea that the Government should guarantee the hypothecated amount which should be obtained from all those who have sets is open to very grave objections. First, the B.B.C. does not have a prescriptive right to the whole of this income. Indeed, the Treasury has the power to vary the percentage which the B.B.C. will receive. As the House may know, some of it has been retained in the past, but even if we were to guarantee the whole amount to the B.B.C. there can be no certainty exactly how much the amount should be. There could be a great deal of dispute about that.
However, the biggest objection to this proposal is that it is tantamount to providing some sort of subsidy from the Exchequer. That would be a dangerous precedent to establish, and it would undermine the independence of the corporation, which I think we all admire and want to protect.

Dr. Winstanley: How does the right hon. Gentleman relate his statement just then with his previous willingness to rely on the rates for the support of local radio?

Mr. Stonehouse: We believe that the rates may be able to play a part in financing broadcasting; but there is no suggestion that they should be the major source of finance. They are simply a vehicle for the local municipalities to participate in the experiment.
We in the Post Office are very keen that evasion should be cut. I think that we can claim that in this respect we have achieved a great deal of success.

Mr. Boston: My right hon. Friend has referred to the question of indemnifying the B.B.C. against loss from evasion and said that there may be some dangers, which we can appreciate, in that this could be regarded as a Government subsidy. But this proposal can be distinguished completely from any direct subsidy. Further, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have reason to believe that there are those in the highest quarters in the corporation who would not regard this proposal as a threat to their independence?

Mr. Stonehouse: I have borne all that in mind, but on balance I reject the point of view.
I turn to the question of dealing with evasion. We have achieved a great deal. In January, 1967, there were just under 14 million television licence holders and 2 million evaders. The proportion of evaders was about 12 per cent. We now have 15½ million licence holders and the number of evaders is down to £1½ million, or down to 7 per cent. We can claim that in two years the percentage has been decreased quite considerably.
Since January, 1968, we have had the advantage of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1967, and we have been receiving from the dealers the names and addresses of all those to whom they sell or rent

television sets. This has helped us to catch up on a good deal of evasion. I would like to thank the dealers for the way they have co-operated with us in that.
I am inaugurating a new scheme to increase the detection of evasion. As the House knows, we have decided to increase the number of detector vans by 18 from the 20 which we now have or have on order. I am increasing the amount of advertising against evasion, both in the Press and on television. I hope that we shall be able to increase the income that we get as a result of this increased detection by at least £3½ million a year, so reducing the evasion to, perhaps, what will be the basic hard core that will be unavoidable; namely, about 5 per cent. of those who have television sets.
The House will also know that we have developed computerisation of the list that we receive from the dealers. We have a pilot scheme in Croydon, and in time all those who have television sets will be computerised and it will be possible for our evasion detection techniques to become even more efficient. I believe that in this way we shall reduce evasion to the very minimum that is acceptable.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the London area? Is it not the case that 45 per cent. of the evaders are in London? If that is the case, why should the rest of us pay for the fact that half a million Londoners are successful crooks?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not know whether I accept that percentage, but I accept that the Metropolis contains a great many evaders. One of the reasons for this is that so many of them are on the move. When dealing with the big towns, and particularly the Metropolis, where so many people live for only a short time in a flat or house, it is not particularly easy—and, indeed, it is extremely expensive—to try to catch up on all of them. We are, however, turning our attention to deal with evasion whether in the Metropolis or elsewhere.
I should like to thank hon. Member as for what they have said about the patronage responsibility of the B.B.C. I belive that this point has been received with unanimity in the House. I do not think that any speech today has absolved


the B.B.C. from that responsibility. I hope that the corporation takes note of this and that the House, on its side, takes note of its responsibility in providing for the B.B.C. the financial wherewithal that it requires so that it can meet its financial responsibilities.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that he thought that a case had been made today for an increase in the licence fee. Does this mean that a request has been made to him for an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee? Does one detect a favourable glint in his eye towards it?

Mr. Stonehousse: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that the logic of today's debate seems to point in that direction. In speeches made from both sides of the House, it has been recognised that our fee in this country is less than most others. Indeed, it is as much as £2 less than the fees being charged in the rest of Europe. I believe that the House generally accepts that this is a reasonable way out of the B.B.C.'s dilemma. I am sure that the Deputy Chief Whip, who has attended most of the debate, would have been delighted, wearing his other hat, to have heard the speeches which have been made about the position of the musicians.
There is general acceptance on both sides of the House that the B.B.C. has a patronage responsibility beyond its simple broadcasting requirements to maintain its orchestras.
I was most impressed with the points put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) against the concept of commercialism. I agree absolutely that commercial radio will not provide a choice. If we were to follow the road suggested by some Opposition spokesmen, we should be lowering radio's standards in Britain and providing a great deal of "mush"—a word which I did not myself invent but which I borrowed from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who used it about the "pirates".
I believe that the B.B.C. has done an excellent job in the local radio experiment. In the communities that have enjoyed the experiment a great anxiety has been shown that it should continue. Hon. Members in whose constituencies

the experiment has been conducted have reported to me that it has been a fair success. There has been divided views about the way in which it should continue, but, generally speaking, hon. Members support the idea that the experiment in these eight towns should continue. We must now look seriously at the ways in which the experiment can be financed, and I undertake at the earliest time to make a statement about the decisions at which I arrive in this respect.
I accept that today's debate is by no means the end of the road. There will have to be continuing debate on all these subjects, which are of great concern to all our constituents, not only about radio but also about television. There are many considerations which we must have in mind about the future of television and the extension of broadcasting. The House today has gained credit for the way in which it has approached the subject, stimulated by the document produced by the B.B.C., which, on balance, has been extremely helpful in our consideration of the situation.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AND DEFENCE VOTES

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question which he had been directed to put by paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) That the total amount of the Votes outstanding for the year 1969–70 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the services defined in those Votes.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1969-70 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)

Question,
That a sum not exceeding £7,294,158,700 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970,
put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put severally the Questions on Motions relating to Navy, Army and Air Services expenditure.

Orders of the Day — NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1967–68

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,789,492 1s. 9d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minutes of 27th January, 1969 (H.C. 95) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1967-68

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,749,632 16s. 4d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts in one of those Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 24th January, 1969 (H.C. 122) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1967–68

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £10,663,439 10s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 27th January, 1969

(H.C. 94) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution relating to Civil and Defence Estimates by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harold Lever and Mr. Dick Taverne.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1970, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Post Office Bill and to the Education (Scotland) Bill and on the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING

Licence and Agreement dated 7th July 1969, between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, [copy laid before the House, 7th July] approved.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

THE MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page line 7, at end insert:
( ) In consequence of subsection (3) above—
(a) in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, immediately before the words "Minister of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Minister of Posts and Telecommunications" and immediately before the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications"; and
(b) in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, immediately before the entry relating to the Minister of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

"Minister of Posts and Telecommunications
£8,500",

and immediately before the entry (under the heading "Parliamentary Secretaries") relating to the Ministry of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

"Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications
£3,750"

10.2 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment arising out of Clause 2(3). The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, contains a provision for the reprinting of that Act as amended from time to time by any other Act. As Clause 2(3)(a) does not make any verbal Amendment of the text of the 1957 Act, it would not, on its own, without this Amendment, afford sufficient authority to alter the text when the 1957 Act is reprinted. The Amendment also makes an amendment to the text of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, consequential upon Clause 2(3)(b).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

POWERS OF THE POST OFFICE

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 6, line 30, leave out from "that" to second "to" in line 31 and insert:
appears to the Post Office to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for it".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend agreed to look again at the drafting of this part of Clause 7 after it had been criticised on Report in this House by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and also by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). Their friends in another place put forward this Amendment which the Government were happy to accept.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

GENERAL DUTY OF THE POST OFFICE

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 30, leave out "provision thereof is, in its opinion," and insert:
Post Office, after consultation with the Minister, considers the provision thereof".

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This part of the subsection imposes particular duties in respect of the Post Office's services. The Post Office is to have the duty, subject to the qualification in brackets, to provide throughout the British Isles such services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them. The words in brackets recognise the practical problems which the Post Office is bound to run into in carrying out this duty. The Bill should not oblige the Post Office to do what is impracticable or not reasonably practicable. The Amendment acknowledges this, but proposes that the practicability of providing a service should be judged not by the Post Office but by the Post Office in consultation with the Minister.
These words are concerned with the details of day to day management. The


Post Office will have a job to do and certain resources with which to do it. Post Office plant and facilities are laid out in what it judges to be the best way to meet the prospective demand for them. But it is not superhuman, and conflicts of priority for the use of its resources are bound to arise in individual cases. If the Amendment stands, every single case of this kind will require the involvement of the Minister. Thus, the Amendment will have the effect of putting the Post Office's customer into a worse position than at present because two bodies—the Ministry and the Post Office—will be involved, rather than one as now. It is hard to believe that this could lead to improved service or less red tape. In my view, it would lead to much more red tape and bureaucracy.
This all comes back to the question of what protection for the Post Office's customers should be built into the Bill. If in order to protect the customers, Parliament really wants the Minister and through the Minister Parliament itself to have a say in the day-to-day questions of the Post Office, it would be better to let the Post Office remain a Department of State. But that is not what we want. Both sides have accepted that the Post Office should become a public corporation. We have to weigh the advantages of giving the Post Office freedom from controls against the need to protect the interests of the customers in the ways that have been suggested.
The Bill as drafted achieves a careful balance in this respect. It sets the new Post Office in an interlocking framework of checks and controls. There are the users' councils which will be quite independent of Post Office organisation and in particular provide a forum where regional views can be voiced. The National Users' Council will be able to consider any case brought to its notice where it may seem as if the Post Office is interpreting its duty unreasonably, and to bring such cases to the Minister's attention. It can also bring cases to the Minister's attention on its own initiative. It will therefore be possible in suitable cases for the Minister to be involved in the kind of way that the Amendment suggests. The Minister has certain powers of direction over the Post Office and he will of course be answerable to Parliament in the usual way in connection

with his sponsorship function over the Post Office.
This framework, while not actually involving the Minister in the decision-making process on day-to-day matters, is sufficient to ensure that the Post Office will be sensitive to public opinion, especially in the kind of case that we are discussing here, where there is a reasonable demand for the services that it provides.
I have read with great interest the debate in another place. However, I regard the Amendment as unrealistic and inconsistent with the basic principles of the Bill, and I advise the House to disagree with it.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Gentleman has set out the background to the Clause as he sees it. I suggest that there is another way of looking at the reason for the Amendment and the whole background of Clause 9.
Clause 9 is headed,
General duty of the Post Office.
It puts on the Post Office a duty
to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Islands ߪ and, in particular, to provide"—
and I emphasise this—
throughout those Islands … services for the conveyance of letters and such telephone services".
The important part of the Clause is
the social, industrial and commercial needs
and particularly the words "throughout those Islands". I am sure that it was the intention of the Committee to put considerable emphasis on the social obligations "throughout those Islands".
In the original Bill, the Post Office could opt out of these arrangements if the Post Office alone considered them to be impracticable. The Lords' Amendment seeks to alter the Bill so that the Post Office will have to consult—no more�žthe Minister on any such measures. The small addition to the Clause would put on the Post Office the duty of consultation.
The real problem to consider is the range of matters which would be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll, in another place, set out certain examples of the kind of thing about which he was worried. I would add my own worries about the Clause. For example, if the


Post Office thought it impracticable in its view only to deliver mail in remote country areas, or to continue sub-post offices again in remote country areas, or to provide telephone services in such areas. These are matters on which the Post Office may or may not be right, but these are really social and political decisions in which this House ought to have some say and be able to question the right hon. Gentleman about the result of consultations on which he has been engaged.
The Government have put forward arguments against accepting this compartively minor Amendment. There were really three objections. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be getting involved in the day-to-day organisation of the Post Office and that there would be two authorities involved, himself and the Post Office, rather than the Post Office alone.
As I have said, I believe that the operative words "provide throughout those Islands" are extremely relevant. These are matters in which the Minister should be involved and should have an opportunity of expressing a view. I believe that it is wrong that a monopoly like the Post Office should alone make this decision.
The right hon. Gentleman's second argument is that the Post Office Users' Councils can, under Clause 14(8)(a),

bring the matters to the Minister for his consideration. This depends on the Post Office Users' Councils being adequate watchdogs. I am not convinced, from past experience, that users' councils as such are always adequate watchdogs, but we will depend entirely on the Post Office Users' Council bringing matters to the attention of the Minister. I believe that many hon. Members would wish an opportunity to bring certain matters before the Minister. This is a matter for which the House should have ultimate responsibility.

The right hon. Gentleman's third argument—and it was used with some force in the other place—was that he had general powers under Clause 11. Subsection (2) says that if there is
a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers …
the Minister may give it directions. I am not certain that the word "defect" is adequate to cover the kind of social responsibility which I have outlined, and which Lord Erroll outlined in another place. Clause 11 is for other types of circumstances, and for those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government's proposals.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 185. Noes 123.

Division No. 341.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Beaney, Alan
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bence, Cyril
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th amp; C'b'e)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Haseldine, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hilton, W. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Hooley, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ennals, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boyden, James
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howie, W.


Brooks, Edwin
Faulds, Andrew
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hunter, Adam


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hynd,John


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Coleman, Donald
Ford, Ben
Janner, Sir Barnett


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Jeger, George (Goole)


Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gregory, Arnold
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)




Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mendelson, John
Slater, Joseph


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Judd, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Kelley, Richard
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Molloy, William
Taverne, Dick


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lawson, George
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Leadbitter, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Lee, John (Reading)
Murray, Albert
Tomney, Frank


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Neal, Harold
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Newens, Stan
Urwin, T. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Norwood, Christopher
Wallace, George


Luard, Evan
Ogden, Eric
watkins, David (Consett)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Whitaker, Ben


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan Lee (Horncnurch)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Macdonald, A, H.
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mackie, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McMamara, J. Kevin
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rose, Paul
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Manuel, Archie
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Peel, John


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bessell, Peter
Hay, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Board man, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Braine, Bernard
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Bryan, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, Namp;M)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Burden, F. A.
Lawler, Wallace
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Carlisle, Mark
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chichester-Clark, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Clark, Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooke, Robert
McMaster, Stanley
Waddington, David


Corfield, F. V.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Dean, Paul
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nott, John



Fortescue, Tim
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hector Monro.



Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Clause 16

VESTING IN THE POST OFFICE OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES GENERALLY

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 19, line 24, at end insert:
( ) all estates and interests in land in the Channel Islands which, immediately before that day, are vested in Her Majesty, being estates and interests in land then occupied or used, in whole or in part, by the Postmaster General or (for, or in connection with, the exercise and performance of any of the Postmaster General's functions) by an officer or servant of the Crown;".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is to ensure that interests in land in the Channel Islands held by the Crown for the purposes of the Postmaster-General's functions will vest in the Post Office. I can say that the Amendment is acceptable to the States.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 21, line 8, leave out "the next but one following section" and insert "section 18 of this Act".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) suggested on Report that Clause 16(2)(j) would be clearer if it were altered along these lines and my right hon. Friend agreed to look at it again. The Opposition, in another place, moved this Amendment which was accepted by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF THE POST OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO TELE COMMUNICATION

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 26, line 39, leave out "this Part of".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 27, line 8, after "infringement" insert
, in relation to a system not extending beyond the British Islands

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that we take with this Amendment, Amendments 8 and 9 together.

Mr. Stonehouse: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
These are drafting Amendments to subsection (2) which deals with the offence of infringing the Post Office's telecommunications monopoly. They make it clear how the subsection works when the telecommunications system in relation to which the offence occurs is a system extending beyond these islands.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26

ACTS RELATING TO BROADCASTING NOT INFRINGING THE TELECOMMUNICA TION PRIVILEGE

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 29, line 23, at the end insert
or through the medium of a relay service licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take Lords Amendment No. 11 with this Amendment.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I request that we take these two Amendments separately, Mr. Speaker? I make this request on new advice that I have received, and I should be grateful if we could deal with Amendment No. 10 on its own.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have given special consideration to this Amendment, and I believe that there is some value in it. An individual customer of a rediffusion service could be construed as infringing the monopoly. It was our intention to allow the rediffusion companies to issue part of the agreement that they had to


the individual customers under a general indemnity, but I have on further examination decided that this Amendment No. 10 achieves the same purpose, and achieves it in a far cleaner way.

Mr. John Hay: May I express to the right hon. Gentleman appreciation—it would be unkind to say, of his death bed repentance, but of his last-minute acceptance of the point we made on Report and which was pressed again in the Lords. As he said, this is intended to benefit the individual subscriber to a relay system and I am certain that the words, as he said, will provide a much cleaner way of dealing with this problem. He has almost redeemed himself in my eyes after refusing to accept some extremely pertinent and useful Amendments that we urged on him on Report. I cannot say that he has completely redeemed himself until I hear what he has to say about Lords Amendment No. 11, but at the moment I thank him very much for having given us this one concession.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 29, line 26, after "reception" insert
or to operate a broadcast relay service".

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I am sorry to upset the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) on this. But if we allowed the Amendment to go through it would undermine the Post Office monopoly, and as the House well knows I am very anxious that the monopoly as it now exists within a Department of State should be transferred to the Corporation, and should not be undermined in the way suggested in the Amendment.
Contrary to the views expressed by some hon. Members in Committee on 6th February, which also appear to be held by some noble Lords, the relay of broadcast programmes falls within the Postmaster-General's monopoly, and relay companies have had licences within the terms of the Telegraph Act, 1869 since the early days of broadcasting. Programme distribution is not technically different from any other forms of telecommunication, and exemption of the relay services from the monopoly would un-

doubtedly lead to other interests seeking similar exemption. This could lead to such erosion of the monopoly that its whole purpose would be frustrated.
The House has frequently run over the ground of this question, and would not wish me to delay it any longer on this, as our point of view on this side of the House is well known.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman has been rather cursory at this stage in dismissing the very pertinent and powerful arguments put in another place in connection with the Amendment. It is true that both in Committee and on Report in this House we have covered the ground concerning the position of the relay services at some length. But that does not make what I regard as a bad case on the Government's side a good one.
The relay services are privately-owned, in the hands of private shareholders, and since they are dependent on the Postmaster-General for the grant of a licence their situation has been fairly clear. But in recent years there has been a development by the Post Office of trying to enter this type of business in competition. The effect of the Bill is henceforth to require the privately-owned relay companies to go to the Post Office Corporation, their competitor, to obtain a licence. It is this simple and single point of principle that has been the crux of our case throughout.
The right hon. Gentleman has often said that since one of the main purposes of the Bill is to renew and extend the monopoly at present operated by the G.P.O. and confer that new and extended monopoly upon the Post Office Corporation, nothing must be done which will whittle that away and make it more difficult for the Post Office in future to operate its monopoly. Intrinsic in this situation, he says, must be the power conferred by statute upon the Post Office to licence anyone who wishes to carry on a particular activity which falls within the Post Office monopoly.
So the House is once again face to face with a single point of principle: do we consider that it is right, just and proper that if someone running a business faces competition from a powerful monopoly—an all-powerful monopoly, I might almost say—that person or company should be obliged to go to that competitor to obtain a licence to carry


on business? That is the situation as it will be once this Bill has become law. I must in fairness admit what the right hon. Gentleman has already told us often—that he intends to grant a licence to existing operations covering them until 1976. But, as I said when I spoke on this subject on Report, we are writing a statute which may exist for many years and what may be the position up to 1976 will not necessarily be the position which will obtain for all time.
Therefore, it seems to us that it would be a perfectly sensible and simple matter to exclude relays altogether from the monopoly, and that, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment. This was another of those cases where the Amendment was supported not only by Conservatives but by a number of Liberal and cross-bench peers. Indeed, I believe that several Labour peers also voted for it because they saw that there was here a major issue of principle.
I am sorry to say that, even at this late stage, the right hon. Gentleman persists in believing that some form of broadcasting is involved in what a relay service does. I ask him again to accept that what a relay service does is to provide an improved method of reception and therefore one should not equate a relay service with the broadcasting authorities. I think that confusion has been at the root of the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department throughout this Bill. They have misconceived what a relay system is.
Tonight we have had a fresh argument from the right hon. Gentleman. This is the argument very familiar from the lips of Ministers—I have used it myself—that we should not do this because it would create a precedent and would open the door to all manner of difficulties. I do not accept that in this case, since the licensing powers are in the hands of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and of the Post Office to draw the line as hard as they will.
The House is faced with a simple issue of principle. Should a relay operator be obliged to go to his competitor to obtain a licence to carry on his business? It is that which divides the two sides. What a wonderful thing it will be if, on our deciding to disagree with the Amendment, the Lords do not

weary of well doing as they did yesterday on the gerrymandering Bill and decide to insist on this Amendment.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I declare what is for me, unhappily, a very minor financial interest in this matter, although no doubt in print it would be regarded as of great importance financially. I have some connection with a relay system and I am a director of a company in the far west which gives relay services. The only reason I became associated with relay was because, unhappily, the B.B.C. was not able to provide the particular service which my constituents would like to receive and, therefore, in many parts of that area the people rely upon a relay system. That is how I originally came into the picture.
What I find distressing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the horror with which he contemplated a situation in which there would be an erosion of monopoly. He spoke as though it would be an offence against the Holy Ghost. It would be out of order now to go into the merits of the different doctrines of this matter. I have always taken the view that where the private sector cannot provide a service, it is the duty of the State to provide it, and for that reason there are many Acts of nationalisation which my colleagues and I have supported and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman warned himself about getting out of order.

Mr. Thorpe: I shall therefore echo what I said, Mr. Speaker, so that it will penetrate to my inner ear drums and merely say that it seems a most extraordinary situation that when a service, which has existed for many years and which has involved large capital investment and has provided a service which the Post Office and the broadcasting authorities on their own admission have not been able to provide, applies for the right to continue, it should be unable to apply to some impartial authority for the right either to continue or to have its licence discontinued, but that the application must be made to those who, according to the Postmaster-General's own speech, are claiming total monopoly and who would look askance at any erosion of those monopolistic powers.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is out of order to say that when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with a very similar situation, namely, the grant of the valuable franchise for independent television companies, they did not have to go to the existing independent companies or to the B.B.C., but to an independent authority for the granting or withholding or variation of the franchise. That is all that is asked in this instance, that after 1976—I understand the operative date to be 31st July—those who have provided a service if applying for a continuation of their licences shall be able to go to an impartial body, which I suggest should be the right hon. Gentleman, to ask to be allowed to continue and that they should not be expected to put their case before those who are themselves seeking monopoly and would therefore be biased against them. All we are asking is that the Corporation should not be judge and jury in its own case.
That seems to be a fairly basic doctrine which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good democrat, would see his way to accept. If he does not see fit to accept it, one will be able to conclude only that for him the phrase "erosion of monopoly" is a far greater spectre of horror than even his speech would lead us to believe and that what he wants to do is not only to create a monopoly, but to give that monopoly power to decide whether any potential competitor should have the right to survive. That is a very wrong concept.

Mr. Paul Bryan: The case has been made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), as well it should have been, for he has often made it, as have the rest of us who were on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Not only do I support my hon. Friend, but I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the Government Motion.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) showed some surprise at the rigidity of the attitude of the Postmaster-General towards monopoly. We are certainly not surprised, because that has been his attitude all through our consideration of the Bill and this just happens to be the most glaring and spectacular illustration of this rigidity.
I was not surprised that the Postmaster-General made so short a speech, because he has made this case so often and it is so bad that by now he is presumably slightly sensitive about it. It must be an embarrassing speech for him to have to make.
Our case still remains utterly unanswerable. We shall still have the ludicrous position in which a company will be asked to apply to its competitor for a licence, without appeal. How anything could be more wrong that that I do not know and I am amazed that we have not made any progress in this case.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 129.

Division No. 342.]
AYES
[10.44 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Gregory, Arnold


Bence, Cyril
Dewar, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hannan, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th amp; C'b'e)
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Haseldine, Norman


Boston, Terence
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Heffer, Eric S.


Boyden, James
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Hilton, W. S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Howie, W.


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hunter, Adam




Hynd, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Manuel, Archie
Rose, Paul


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Jeger, George (Goole)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Mendelson, John
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Taverne, Dick


Judd, Frank
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Kelley, Richard
Moonman, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Kenyon, Clifford
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Neal, Harold
Wallace, George


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Newens, Stan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Wellbeloved, James


Loughlin, Charles
Norwood, Christopher
Whitaker, Ben


Luard, Evan
Ogden, Eric
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Macdonald, A. H.
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McGuire, Michael
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur



McNamara, J. Kevin
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Peel, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bessell, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heseltine, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brains, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Silvester, Frederick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, Namp;M)
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Carlisle, Mark
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lawler, Wallace
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Corfield, F. V.
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Whitelaw. Rt. Hn. William


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Wiggin, A. W.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wright, Esmond


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Younger, Hn. George


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)



Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Anthony Royle and



Nott, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Clause 27

SAVING FOR THINGS DONE UNDER LICENCE

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 29, line 28, leave out from beginning to "either" in line 30 and insert:
The Minister may grant a licence".

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this. House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
There was discussion on the last Amendment about the shortness of my speech. Perhaps it will be appropriate if I make a slightly longer speech on this Amendment, succinctly to put the case for the monopoly. The purpose of the Bill, which the House considered at great length in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, is that the Post Office Corporation should have the telecommunications monopoly at present enjoyed by the Postmaster-General. The only major change in its scope is that the new monopoly catches the British ends of the overseas systems and the old one did not.
The Government believe that it is important to have a single, publicly-owned system with a monopoly by Act of Parliament because the communications network has an essential job to do in the economy and in the country, and the communications network is a natural monopoly. The bigger it is, the more valuable it is to its users. The various facilities—the telegraph, telephone, vision and data aspects—of the system use a common plant and techniques, and many users need to use several of these. It is obviously right to have one body providing them.
This communications network requires planning for many years ahead on a secure basis; and finances permanently secure against "creaming-off" of the specially profitable bits of the system. Nothing short of an Act of Parliament can give this security. A monopoly at the gift of a Minister, which he could revoke when he feels like it, simply will not do. Furthermore, the staff must be given a real sense of security for the future.
If we were to allow the Amendment to stand, it would be possible for a future Minister gradually to erode the monopoly without any further reference

to this House, and I believe that the House would regard it as wrong for such an important decision to be made by a Minister without a new Bill.
When the Amendment was discussed on Report in another place, the view of those who supported the Amendment seemed to be that the Post Office should have a statutory monopoly but not the power to grant monopoly licences. In their view, this was a function of Ministers, and they saw licensing by an impartial Minister as a protection for the consumer.
The point was not made specifically on either side in the other place that the Amendment would leave open the possibility that a Minister could use it to dismantle the monopoly, in particular by opening the provision of the communications system to private enterprise. As I have said, this is an important point, and I believe that on both sides of the House there would be support for the view that, if this important departure were to be made from a monopoly by a future Minister, the issue should be brought to the House, and should not be decided by a Minister without the House having an opportunity to discuss a fresh Bill on it.
If this unique network is to be preserved, inbuilt safeguards must be provided for it, and it is important that the telecommunications monopoly that at present resides in the Postmaster-General should reside in the public Corporation of the future, so that the Corporation will be able to do the job which this House expects it to do to maintain and develop efficiently the communications system.
The noble Lord Lord Helsby in another place gave as his reason for pressing the Amendment that involving the Minister enabled Parliament to be brought in. But licensing is only one of the many ways in which the Post Office will be fulfilling its functions, and there is no reason to involve Parliament directly in this function.
I hope the House will agree with me in disagreeing with the Amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: This Amendment raises the whole matter of monopoly, not merely in the narrower sense, but over the whole wide range of telecommunications. The Minister


has produced the extraordinary argument that he wants to transfer the present monopoly of telecommunications enjoyed by the Postmaster-General, a Minister of the Crown, to a new public corporation which is not subject to day to day questioning in this House. The two concepts are absolutely different.
To begin with, the monopoly which he proposes to transfer is a widely extended one. If it were simply a case, as the Postmaster-General has argued, of wanting to protect against erosion the present telecommunications network as it exists, there is an easy way to deal with that. But in this Amendment we are concerned with the whole future of telecommunications, with aspects which have not yet been thought of at all.
We are not here dealing with the old system of telephone lines and exchanges, but with the telecommunications of the future which can hardly be foreseen and at which the mind boggles. The Postmaster-General has been careful in the passage of the Bill to remove the upper limit of three million megacycles on his monopoly. He well knows that it is in the area of frequency spectrum that the new developments will come, which will make the present system of telephone communication by line and semi-mechanical exchanges totally out of date. There are systems which have not yet been thought of operating in frequencies which have not yet been developed, well above the frequency of light. The Postmaster-General well knows that it is on that aspect that the present system of communications might well be in danger in the future.
He is saying that at all costs we must preserve the monopoly of the stage coach in case somebody in the future should invent a motor car. What will happen is not that the new Corporation will develop these new areas, but that it will use its monopoly to prevent their development. To take a simple case, at present the Postmaster-General licenses the ordinary two-way mobile radio—

Mr. Stonehouse: How can the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) justify his remark that the Post Office would stand in the way of new development? Surely he knows that the Post Office is now in the forefront of new development. The p.c.m. system is only one example of this. The

hon. Gentleman has no ground at all for that remark.

Captain Orr: That is not quite what I said. I have no doubt—I have said this often before—that those at present in charge of the Post Office are interested in new developments—of course they are. I have no doubt that they would willingly work on these matters in their research establishment at Dollis Hill and elsewhere; they are at present very forward-looking. But at present they have competition. Where the Post Office has not itself been willing to develop, let us say, two-way radio as applied to ambulance services and taxi services, it is being done by private enterprise. The Post Office has not been willing to move into that sphere of activity. If the Post Office, rather than a Minister of the Crown, had been in the position of granting licences, I wonder what would have happened in the end. If it had been thought at the time that the development of this kind of communication would become a menace to the capital investment in line telecommunications, what would those devoted public servants in the Post Office have thought it their public duty to do? The argument is against monopoly, whether it be State or private monopoly. Those who serve the Post Office might think it their public duty to stifle any new development which might menace its present capital investment.
There is not much hope of getting the Postmaster-General to change his mind. His dogmatism on the subject is notorious and has been displayed on many occasions. But I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be steeled in their determination, when we return to office, to remove the licensing power from the Corporation and put it into other hands. Like the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), I would prefer them to be the hands of an entirely independent body. But this Amendment seeks to put it in the hands of the Minister, and that seems reasonable, as the Minister is responsible to the House. The Minister may issue licences without reference to the House, but he is subject to Questions in the House as to whether a licence is fair as between the Corporation and a competitor.
All that we seek is a fair system. It is not fair if the new Corporation, controlling the largest amount of capital in


the country and one of the largest employers of labour, is left in the position of being able to stifle all competition and hold up the extension of modern methods of communications in the future. I hope that the House will reject the Minister's proposition.

Mr. Thorpe: I desire to make two brief comments on the arguments advanced by the Postmaster-General. For a long period, I thought how lucky I was not to have been involved in the Committee stage, but I realise now how much interesting political dogma I have missed.
The two points are those on which the right hon. Gentleman based his argument. My first comment is that his diagnosis of the Parliamentary rights of this House is inaccurate. The second is that his logic is severely at fault.
With regard to the first, he talks about the necessity for Parliamentary control, which I understand he concedes. Obviously it is necessary for this House to be able to control excesses, whether they be of the Post Office Corporation or of the Postmaster-General. If the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance to that, let us see what the situation is. It is that, if the Amendment were rejected, a licence could be granted by the Post Office, provided that it was within the general terms issued by the Postmaster-General.
The suggestion in the Amendment of the other place is that it is the Minister himself who may grant a licence. Therefore, it is not left within the generality of terms which may have been laid down five or 10 year before. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a specific licence granted by a Minister is more readily the subject of a Parliamentary check, control and debate than one issued by a Post Office Corporation which may coincidentally fit in with general terms previously issued, conditional or unconditional.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. It is the intention of this House, through the Post Office Bill, that the monopoly now enjoyed by the Postmaster-General should be transferred to the Corporation. My point was that a future Minister could undermine that monopoly in a way that the House does not approve. By the techniques suggested in the Amend-

ment in another place, it would be possible for certain sections of the network to be creamed off as a result of unilateral ministerial decision. That is what I want to prevent. I believe that this House intends that the Post Office Corporation should continue to enjoy the existing monopoly.

Mr. Thorpe: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I make only two comments. First, the right hon. Gentleman has touched on the second point to which I am coming, namely, that his logic about the powers of the Postmaster-General is wrong. Before the Assistant Postmaster-General shakes his head, perhaps he will do me the honour of listening to what I have to say before deciding whether he agrees or disagrees.
The other point is that the Minister has said that a Postmaster-General may cream off the service contrary to the wishes of the House. It seems a strange argument that a Postmaster-General will, by the acceptance of the Amendment, be able to drive something through the House against the wishes of the majority. If the Minister was the issuing licensor, it would be less likely to happen than if it was done through a general authority which could have been set up five or ten years before. I cannot accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Nor could he if he looked at it realistically.
It is quite extraordinary. We are saying that the Minister becomes far more answerable because it is his responsibility in each case. He cannot merely say that there was a general authority issued, that there were certain conditions laid down, that those conditions have been satisfied, and, therefore, it is not a matter for him.
The right hon. Gentleman's first argument, that the Minister can in some strange way cream off the market without reference to the House of Commons, by the very definition of it, is of no account. The fact that he has personally to issue the licence and to justify it makes him far more accountable to the House.
Coming to the right hon. Gentleman's second argument, that the Minister's powers of monopoly must be divested and given to the Post Office Corporation, he seems to have failed to understand that he may have a monopolistic power now, he may have the power to license, but he


is not an operator. The great difference is that he is not an operator. He does not have to provide the Post Office lines to transmit broadcasting from the West Country; he is not responsible for seeing whether Caradon Hill has the necessary television boost to carry a good picture. This is done by a third party. Sometimes it is the B.B.C., sometimes the I.T.A., and sometimes, indeed, it is a relay service. This is the point where the right hon. Gentleman's logic falls down.
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wishes one body to have the power of licensing and the power of operating. Lord Thomson once said that he had the power to print money. But the powers that are given here not only to operate, but to license as well, would, by comparison, qualify Lord Thomson for supplementary benefit. That is the power. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's logic is totally fallacious. He is saying, "I have monopolistic power at the moment, but I give it to the various broadcasting authorities, whether in public or in private service, whether a public corporation like the B.B.C. or the Post Office or the I.T.A. or the relay services." He is now trying to amalgamate those powers and give them to one organisation which will also have the power of licensing. This is wrong.
It is frightening when a Postmaster-General, opposing an Amendment which is brought forward, first gives a totally fallacious appraisal of the parliamentary situation and proves that he has failed to appreciate the powers which he exercises and proposes not only to delegate those powers but to delegate the operation of those powers as well. If that has been the logic behind his thinking, I can understand why he has failed to appreciate the advantage of the Amendment.

Mr. Bryan: I shall not add much to the arguments which have been put forward, because they could not have been put in a more powerful way by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).

11.15 p.m.

The Postmaster-General spoke as though we were all agreed that the monopoly as now enjoyed by the Postmaster-General should be transferred in precisely its present form to the new corporation. This is not what we all thought in Committee upstairs. We thought that this was an opportunity to have a close look at this monopoly before passing it on, because of the new situation which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman. We thought that a much closer look was required, for the very reason that no Minister would have his eye on this monopoly.

As to the erosion of monopoly, we do not see any great danger there. We would far rather see the Minister in a position to adjust the monopoly as he saw fit, with Parliament overlooking him the whole time, than have the monopoly rigid in the hands of the Post Office year after year. The whole technical situation in industry will alter over the years, and still this rigid monopoly will be held by this corporation, whereas if the final appeal, or licence, is in the hands of the Minister, he can adjust it from time to time, and I am not in the slightest frightened of this threat of erosion of monopoly.

I think it worth pointing out that the C.B.I. has taken the trouble to write to the Minister of Technology asking him to press this point with the Postmaster-General, again pointing out what Lord Halsbury said in another place, namely, that in a technological age like this advances are made at such a speed that one simply cannot have a monopoly in so rigid a form as this.

I think that the case has been well put once again. It is fitting that this very last debate in this long discussion lasting since November should return to the attack on the rigidity of monopoly. I think that that is the most important evil that we have been fighting, and we have failed so far to destroy it. I now suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we oppose the Minister in this Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 132.

Division No. 343.]
AYES
[11.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Beaney, Alan


Archer, Peter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bence, Cyril




Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold


Booth, Albert
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Boston, Terence
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Boyden, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher


Brooks, Edwin
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th amp; C'b'e)
Luard, Evan
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Wellbeloved, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Winnick, David


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and



Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Goodhart, Philip


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cooke, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Paul
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. amp; Fhm)
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bessell, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heseltine, Michael


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Hill, J. E. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holland, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
Emery, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N amp; M)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy







Lane, David
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lawler, Wallace
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Waddington, David


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wall, Patrick


Maude, Angus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, A. W.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wright, Esmond


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharpies, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Frederick



Nott, John
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Page, Graham (Crosby)

Clause 29

EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OF THE POST OFFICE, ITS OFFICERS AND SERVANTS, IN RELATION TO POSTS AND TELE COMMUNICATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 32, line 6, at end insert:
( ) No person engaged in or about the carriage of mail and no Officer, Servant, Agent or Sub-Contractor of such person shall be subject except at the suit of the Post Office to any civil liability for any loss or damage in the case of which liability of the Post Office therefor is excluded by subsection (1) of this section.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of the Lords Amendment is to extend to carriers of mails certain exemptions from liability in respect of the carriage of mail enjoyed by the present Post Office and transferred to the new Post Office by Clause 29 of the Bill. We recommend that this Amendment be accepted because we have concluded that this change, while improving the law, will have no significant effect on the ordinary user of the postal services.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

MAKING, BY THE MINISTER, IN CON SIDERATION OF THE EXCHEQUER'S BEING RELIEVED OF CERTAIN LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO PEN SIONS. OF PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEES APPOINTED BY THE POST OFFICE

Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 43, line 11, leave out "amounts" and insert "amount".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this we take Lords Amendment No. 16, in page 43, line 12, leave out second "to".

Mr. Slater: The Amendment puts the verb "amounts" into the plural because its antecedent is the plural noun "proceeds".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52

RATING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 46, line 14, after "(a)" insert "by order".

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in all the Amendments from No. 17 to No. 35. I have suggested that


we take all these Amendments, from No. 17 to No. 35, together.

Mr. Stonehouse: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Members of the Standing Committee will remember that I gave an undertaking that there would be a discussion with the local authorities associations about the rating valuation for the Post Office network and railway. Discussions took place between officials, and the Amendments which were moved in another place are brought forward to honour the agreement that was reached with the associations. They provide for a general revaluation to meet the points that have been raised by the associations. They have been welcomed by the associations, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to—[Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 66

HARBOUR CHARGES ON MAIL-BAGS

Lords Amendment No. 36: In page 54, line 27, leave out from "mail-bags" to end of line 29 and insert:
whrich, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office ".

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this; House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to consider with it Lords Amendment No. 37, in Clause 67, page 55, line 26, leave out from "mail-bags" to end of line 28 and insert:
which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office ".

Mr. Slater: The Amendments are the result of a suggestion for improving the drafting of the Clauses made to the Gov-

ernment by the Chairman of the Port of London Authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76

CONSEQUENTIAL ADAPTATIONS OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 38: in page 58, line 33, leave out "Order" and insert "Orders".

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with it we take Lords Amendment No. 63, in Schedule 4, page 129, line 11, at end insert:
100B. As from the appointed day, references in the Parliamentary Writs Order 1944 (which lays down rules for the conveyance through the post of writs for parliamentary elections for constituencies in Great Britain) to the Pastmaster General shall be construed as referring to the authority.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The Amendment is a paving Amendment for Lords Amendment No. 63, which transfers to the new Post Office certain duties imposed on the Postmaster-General by the Parliamentary Writs Order, 1944.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Bryan, Mr. Faulds, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Joseph Slater and Mr. Stonehouse; Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Storehouse.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 24, after "suitable" insert:
in the ordinary case".

11.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to new Section 1(2) of the 1962 Act as set out in the Clause. It clarifies the wording of the definition of activities in nursery schools and classes, and makes it consistent with the new definitions of primary and secondary education in Clause 1(2).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 24, after first "of" insert:
school education in public schools at which fees were being charged on the 25th November 1968 and of".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure as to what is being grouped with this Amendment. We are certainly going to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 15, in Clause 27, page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning to "Part" in line 15 and insert "Paragraph 7(2) of"; No. 16, in Clause 27, page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph (a); No. 17, in Schedule 2, page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39; and No. 21, in Schedule 3, page 48, column 3, leave out line 10. However, I am in doubt about No. 4, in Clause 1, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—
(a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an out-with-area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and
(b) the said pupil is on 1st October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary

school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,
the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith- area pupil:
Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority.

Mr. Millan: I think that it would be more convenient if we discussed No. 4 at the same time, and the Government Amendment to it, in line 2, after 'above)', insert:
(a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;
(b).
Some of these Amendments are consequential on taking the group as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: Then, if there is no objection …?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We would prefer to take No. 4 separately, Mr. Speaker, but the others grouped with No. 2.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I thought in the first place. Then we will leave out Amendment No. 4 and the Amendment to it, and discuss Amendments No. 15, 16, 17 and 21 with Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Millan: Lords Amendment No. 2 deals with the question of fee paying in local education authority schools, a matter which has been discussed at great length on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to cover these matters in any considerable detail.
We on this side have, of course, taken the view that fee paying in local education authority schools is an anachronism. In any case, the payment of fees is not a


major issue, but the fact that the payment of fees is bound up with the continuance of a selective system of secondary education, which it is the Government's pledge to see discontinued in favour of comprehensive secondary education. There is no doubt that the continuance of fee paying is incompatible with the move towards comprehensive education.
Nor does the freedom of choice argument, which has been used in this context, seem to us to have any validity in the situation in which selection at the age of 12—whatever else may be the arguments for it—is inimical to any real freedom of choice for the parents concerned.
The number of schools with which we are dealing here is very small compared with the number of schools providing secondary education, and indeed primary education, in Scotland as a whole. This whole argument about fee paying has been carried on at what I personally regard as a very exaggerated level.
The Amendment is also rather curious because it does not attempt to reestablish the general powers of local education authorities in Scotland to charge fees in local education authority schools but would restrict that power to the schools at which fees were being charged at a particular date, namely, 25th November, 1968. It may be possible to argue in principle that local education authorities in Scotland should have this power, but whatever the arguments in principle, there can be very little justification for an Amendment which would restrict the power to a very small number of schools which happened to charge fees on that date.
Apart from being unacceptable to the Government, the Amendment would also stand on its head the argument which the Opposition used on this issue all the way through our debates here and in another place. I therefore see no justification for the Amendment, either in principle or in its practical implications. As I said, we debated this matter at considerable length. I have, of course, read carefully the Reports of the debates in another place, but I read no arguments produced there which had not already been dealt with at great length in our debates here.
The other Amendments, Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 21, are technical, and are completely consequential on Amendment No. 2. If the House disagrees with the Lords on Amendment No. 2, as I am asking it to do, it will also be necessary, to maintain consistency in the Bill, to reject these other four Amendments.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I greatly regret that the Government are seeking to reject the Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, this debate revives the argument which raged in the House and in the Scottish Standing Committee earlier this year. The more the argument continues, the more my hon. Friends and I are convinced that our cause is just and that of the Government unjust, and based on narrow political dogma and cheap and contemptible envy.
The purpose of the Government's proposal is to remove the right of local authorities to charge fees in certain schools. There are few of these schools. Only two local authorities resist the Government's will, Edinburgh and Glasgow. But it is not the number of schools or of local authorities which matters. What does matter is that we now confront two important principles—the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of local authorities to determine the pattern of education provided in their areas.
These are two fundamental principles which the House must not lightly brush aside. The first, freedom of choice, is surely one we should respect in Britain, and it is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which the Government pretend to support. The second, the freedom of local authorities is one to which the Government pay lip service but which they are ready to override and crush if the will of the local authority happens, as in this case, to be in conflict with the educational dogma of the Labour Party.
In all our debates, which have gone on month after month, the Government have not yet advanced a single education argument in support of their intention to crush local democracy. They object to selectivity, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, and yet selectivity in one form or another is present in every kind of education. They maintain that a fee paying system cannot be tolerated side by


side with the developing comprehensive system of education. We do not agree.
On this side, we believe that the strength of Scottish education is the variety it provides. We believe that the quality of Scottish education will be maintained and strengthened if local authority fee paying and comprehensive schools can develop together side by side to form a varied pattern in which parents have choice. The fees at these schools are not high. Indeed, many of the places are free, as the hon. Gentleman learned from us during the Committee stage. If the Government abolish these schools they will remove freedom of choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere, to the expensive independent schools, but from parents who are less well off and for whom the local authority fee paying schools provide the only alternative form of education available to their children. The self-styled egalitarians opposite are removing freedom not from the rich, who can look elswhere, but from the poor.
During our debates on this part of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one regard. He has consistently ignored the questions which we have asked. He has not yet told us, despite repeated questions, what will happen to these schools. The fees will end in August next year if the Government

are successful tonight. But that is not the extent of the Government's intention. We know from what he said that they propose to turn these schools into territorial comprehensive schools, despite the fact, which stares them in the face, that many of them are totally unsuitable for that purpose.

Furthermore, the Government must know by now, because we have told them often enough, that, if these schools are turned into territorial comprehensive schools, they will become socially divisive because the children will come from wealthy, well-to-do areas. At present, on the other hand, the children are drawn from every part of Edinburgh and Glasgow. I have shown in earlier debates that they represent a social mix which all of us wish to see in our schools. That will vanish if the Government are successful in their proposal tonight.

My hon. Friends and I wish to preserve the freedom of choice which parents in Edinburgh and Glasgow enjoy today. We also wish to preserve the right of local authorities to shape the pattern of education in their areas. We therefore greatly regret that the Government are persisting in their shameful intent, and we shall divide against it.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 122.

Division No. 344.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dewar, Donald
Harper, Joseph


Beaney, Alan
Dobson, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bence, Cyril
Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Bessell, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th amp; C'b'e)
Hilton, W. S.


Binns, John
Eadie, Alex
Hooson, Emlyn


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howie, W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hunter, Adam


Boston, Terence
Faulds, Andrew
Hynd, John


Boyden, James
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brooks, Edwin
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, George (Coole)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)


Concannon, J. D.
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Conlan, Bernard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lawler, Wallace


Crawshaw, Richard
Gregory, Arnold
Lawson, George


Dalyell, Tam
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)




Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Molloy, William
Small, William


Loughlin, Charles
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Luard, Evan
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Murray, Albert
Taverne, Dick


McBride, Neil
Neal, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Newens, Stan
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


MacColl, James
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Tinn, James


MacDermot, Niall
Norwood, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Macdonald, A. H.
Oswald, Thomas
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Mackie, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackintosh, John P.
Pavitt, Laurence
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitaker, Ben


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pentland, Norman
White, Mrs. Eirene


McNamara, J. Kevin
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Afan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mahon, Dr. J, Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rankin, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Manuel, Archie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Winnick, David


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William



Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Slater, Joseph
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Giover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Goodhow, Victor
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brian, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, Namp;M)
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Gordon (Moray amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Corfield, F. V.
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Wiggin, A. W.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Emery, Peter
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Farr, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Murton, Oscar



Fortescue, Tim
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Nott, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Hector Monro.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—

(a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an outwith area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and
(b) the said pupil is on 1st. October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,


the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:
Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after 'above)', insert:
(a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;
(b).
This Amendment to the Lords Amendment will restore in subsection (3) of Clause 1 the original wording of the subsection which the Lords Amendment removed. It is consequential on the decision, which we have just taken, to abolish fee-paying that we wish to put the date of 1st August, 1970, back into the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that if this Amendment is not made, the abolition will take effect within one month of Royal Assent. Therefore, I am sure that they will agree to the Amendment.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Mr. Milian: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended.
I have already explained the Amendment, and perhaps I might now explain the effect of the Lords Amendment. This is a transitional provision and it enables education authorities to charge fees for outwith area pupils, who are defined in the Amendment, and who are in secondary departments on 1st October, 1970, and for whom fees were being paid in respect of attendance at a school belonging to the authority at any time in the year preceding the abolition of fee-paying generally.
This transitional Amendment is meant to cover a particular situation. In Glasgow there are a fair number of pupils coming from outside the city and paying fees at Glasgow education authority schools. There is a smaller number of such pupils, but still a significant number, in the case of Edinburgh. After the abolition of fee-paying generally, a particular problem would arise with regard to these pupils.
The providing authority—Glasgow or Edinburgh—might naturally be reluctant to continue to educate those children at its own expense as it bears no responsibility for them if fees are not being paid. On the other hand, the pupils concerned will come from authorities which might equally be reluctant to make payments in respect of them—which they would be entitled to do under the existing law—because they already make educational provision for these children in their own areas. If parents choose to send their children to another area, the education authority might take the view that there is no reason why it should be put to extra expense for them. Therefore, there might be a situation in which neither the receiving authority was willing to continue to educate these pupils at its own expense, nor the sending authority was willing to take responsibility for them.
We have made it clear all along that we do not want that situation to arise. The best way to safeguard it is to include a specific transitional provision, which is what the Amendment does. It covers pupils in secondary education from 1970–71 onwards, including those whose last year of primary education was 1969–70. In other words, it covers the pupils who are most concerned and who would most be affected if there were a disruption of their education. Younger pupils are not covered, but these pupils are in almost exactly the same position as pupils from Glasgow and Edinburgh areas who are at present in the primary departments of fee-paying schools.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree to the Lords Amendment, as amended.

12 m.

Mr. MacArthur: As the Minister has explained, this is a transitional Amendment and it makes provision to cover the position of those pupils in outwith


areas already at the schools at the time that fees are removed. I will not attempt to abuse your generosity, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House, by going again over the basic arguments. I simply advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment to provide for consistency in the Bill and for the transitional provision which I think should be introduced into the Bill.

Question,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6

POWER OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO PERSONS PRO- VIDING EDUCATION, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 7, line 1, leave out from beginning to "payments" in line 3 and insert:
( ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above, the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be required for the making by an education authority, by virtue of the power conferred on them by that paragraph, of

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are drafting Amendments which make it clear that any education authority's power to make payments to managers of schools other than public schools in respect of individual pupils whom they are sponsoring derives from the power in Section 25(1)(c) as set out in Section 6, and is not an additional power conferred by Section 25(2). Amendment No. 6 is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 7, line 14, after "representation" insert "or additional representation".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 make it clear that an education authority can have additional representation on the governing body of an educational establishment to which it is making payments.

This covers additional representation as well as representation generally.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 16, line 31, at end insert:
( ) if within the said period the parent requires them, under subsection (4) below, to issue to him a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, earlier than the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which that statement was issued,

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 extend the 28-day period for appeal for a parent against an authority's decision to issue a report to the local authority that the child is unsuitable for education in a case where a parent has asked the education authority for a statement of reasons.
As originally drafted, the new subsection in Clause 10 provided that where, as a result of the ascertainment or review of a child receiving special education, it was decided that he was unsuitable for education, and accordingly there was a report made to the local authority, the report must not be issued earlier than 28 days from the issue to the parents of the notice intimating the education authority's decision, and that within that period of 28 days an appeal might be made by the parent to the Secretary of State.
We are extending the period during which an appeal might be made to take account of the case where the parent might ask for a statement of reasons. The 28 days for appeal would then run from the statement of reasons rather than from the original intimation to the parent. In other words, we are providing an additional safeguard to the parent in the circumstances of this Clause, and I am sure that it will be generally welcomed

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 21, line 22, after "provide" insert "or secure the provision of".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 18: In page 41, line 10, at end insert:
In section 49 (power of education authorities to assist persons to take advantage of educational facilities) —

(a) for the words "primary or secondary", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "school";
(b) in subsection (1), for the words "Great Britain", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "Scotland"."

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to make the wording consistent with other parts of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 19: In page 42, line 17, at end insert:
In section 91 (incidental expenses of education authorities)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word 'duties' there shall be substituted the word 'functions';
(b) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph: —
'(d) expenses incurred by the parent of any child in connection with any medical or dental inspection, or any medical or psychological examination, of that child, or by any young person in connection with any medical or dental inspection of that young person, under any provision of this Act'.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This adds a specific power to Section 91 of the 1962 Act giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations sanctioning payment by an education authority of expenses incurred by a parent in connection with medical and psychological examinations under Clause 10 of the Bill or by a parent of a young person in connection with medical and dental inspections under the 1962 Act in Clause 9 of the Bill.
The point was raised in another place that the wording was not absolutely clear. To put the matter beyond doubt and to make it clear that education authorities can make these reimbursements, this Amendment was moved. I think that it is an improvement to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 45, line 2, at end insert—
( ) after paragraph (19) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(19A) 'Enactment' includes an order, regulation, rule or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act;";

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords Amendment No. 21: In page 48, column 3, leave out line 10.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. Millan, Mr. Oswald and Mr. Ross; Three to be the Quorum. — [Mr. Ross.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Irving, to accept manuscript Amendments on this occasion?

The Chairman: I was about to say that I have received some manuscript Amendments. If it would help the Committee, I would say that the first I have accepted is on Clause 4. I will therefore put the first three Clauses together and we can proceed to the first Amendment.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CONSTITUTION OF THE INSPECTION COMMITTEE

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "Parliament" insert:
and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
This Amendment deals with a situation to which attention was drawn in recommendation No. 2 of the Law Commission. There is a body called an Inspection Committee with certain powers and duties given to it by statute in relation to Trustee Savings Banks.
The Savings Bank Act, 1891, gave this Inspection Committee the power to write its own constitution, which it did, and in that year it laid a scheme before Parliament. That scheme has remained the same until now. The Inspection Committee has power to modify that scheme. It has never done so. But it seems probable that the power to modify is not a pcwer to make an entirely new scheme.
The evidence put before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills was:
It seems that an Act is required for a new scheme to be made, and that is the main amendment recommended in the recommendation.
The noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, summed up the matter in this way:

So your proposal is really this, that we abolish the rather obscure scheme which is not readily available to the public, and replace it with a statutory instrument which would be laid before Parliament and be available to the public.
That is what has been done in Clause 4(8), and it is to subsection (8) that the Amendment is directed. The subsection provides:
The power to make a scheme under this section, and the power to modify it, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall he laid before Parliament …".
Where, under existing law, an Act of Parliament would be necessary to amend the scheme of the Inspection Committee or to bring in a new scheme, it will be possible in future to make that new scheme by a Statutory Instrument. But what the Bill does is to leave it to a Statutory Instrument which will be merely laid before Parliament. It does not add the normal Parliamentary procedure that such a Statutory Instrument may be annulled upon a Resolution of either House of Parliament. The Amendment would add that proviso to the power to change the scheme by a Statutory Instrument.
If the Inspection Committee wished to exercise its power to make an order embodying a new scheme, it would have to lay the Statutory Instrument before the House, and that Statutory Instrument would be subject to the comparatively normal procedure of annulment by a Resolution of either House. I might have chosen to ask that the Statutory Instrument should be laid in draft and that there should be an affirmative Resolution before it was accepted, but I have chosen the most innocuous procedure, that of annulment. However, I urge that if we are replacing the need for an Act of Parliament by a Statutory Instrument, that Statutory Instrument should be given the formality of Parliamentary procedure, and it should be possible for any hon. Member to bring it before the House by means of a Prayer.

12.15 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said, the Savings Banks Act, 1891, empowered the Inspection Committee to write its own constitution in a scheme which had to be laid before Parliament. It has power to modify the scheme, and the modification also has to be laid.
The Law Commission did not say that if the Committee ever desired to make a new scheme an Act of Parliament would be required. By exercising its power to modify the existing scheme, the committee could, in effect, make a new scheme.
The Commission's recommendation followed the law in providing that the new scheme and any modification thereof should be laid before Parliament. The change which it recommended was to make the scheme a Statutory Instrument, so that it would become published and readily available.
I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I have given very careful consideration to it. But it is a rather narrowly balanced matter as far as I am concerned.
First, what is proposed in the Amendment is not in accordance with the Law Commission's recommendation. Second, by the same token, what is comprised in the Amendment has not received the consideration of the Joint Committee. The Law Commission and the Joint Committee have treated the proposal in the Bill as meeting the requirements of the situation, because it provides for the publication of the scheme and achieves the making available of the scheme by the method of a Statutory Instrument.
Bearing these factors in mind, I am inclined to the view that my duty is to recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment, but I want to make it clear that I have given careful consideration to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. There is force in his argument. However, we are dealing with a rather special circumstance; namely, a proposal made in a consolidation Measure which has not been recommended by the Law Commission and has not received the consideration of the Joint Committee.
The Law Commission and the Joint Committee recognise that the desirable objective of the Clause is achieved by the laying of a Statutory Instrument and the publication and ready availability of the Instrument by that means. I therefore recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) moved the

Amendment on the ground of its merits. The Solicitor-General has indicated that, on the merits, he has no objection. His reason for suggesting that the Committee should reject the Amendment is that he thinks that there are procedural objections.
It is on the procedural aspect that I am concerned to intervene. We are embarking on what is a totally new procedure; that is, we are discussing Amendments to a consolidation Bill which are outside the sphere of pure consolidation as such.
In a way, it is rather unfortunate that this should be the first of the series of Amendments which my hon. Friend and I have submitted in manuscript. But it is important that the Committee, and perhaps ultimately the House, should decide what is to be our procedure in this kind of case.
The Solicitor-General's argument is that the Amendment is not pure consolidation, and I agree, and that it is not one which has been recommended by the Law Commission or considered by the Joint Select Committee, and I agree with that, too. But if that argument is to hold, it means, in effect, that we are to be limited altogether to pure consolidation, or to matters which have been considered by the Joint Select Committee after recommendation by the Law Commission.
The Law Commission is not a legislative body as such. It may, or may not, make good recommendations, having regard to the will of Parliament. It is important that it should advise us, but all it does is to advise us. The Joint Select Committee is a legislative body, but it considers these matters solely from the point of procedure. It is not concerned primarily with merits. Therefore, we are getting very near the point at which we are amending the law without permitting Parliament to consider the merits of the case at all, and I am anxious about this position.
I do not wish to press the Committee to come to a decision on this matter by voting. I do not think that that will be necessary, but it should be put on record that the position is not satisfactory, that it may happen in future that more important issues than this will be raised. This is the thin end of a very broad wedge. I hope that some note


will be taken of this debate, and that those who are responsible for ensuring that the procedure of the House is kept up to date will take steps to deal with this matter.
I am not in any sense criticising the Chair. I am saying that these matters will need careful consideration elsewhere. Before the Amendment is negatived, I wish to put that on record.

Mr. Graham Page: I am disappointed that the Solicitor-General feels that he cannot accept the Amendment. I am disappointed that he has put forward the argument that he has done in rejecting it. As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that on the merits the matter is fairly evenly balanced, but he is swayed by the fact that the matter was not contained in a report from the Law Commission upon which this consolidation Measure and its Amendments are based, and therefore it was not considered by the Joint Select Committee.
I think that that is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. It is surely for this House, when it is presented with a Bill of this sort, with Amendments based on the Law Commission's report, not to feel itself bound by the decisions of the Law Commission if it finds that the Commission has recommended one particular point without considering all the ramifications of that point. And if, in this House, we find that there is something further on the fringe of its original point with which we should deal, we should not be prevented from doing so by the fact that the Law Commission did not think of it.
In this case, reading the Law Commission's report, and reading the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee, it is obvious that the minds of all those concerned went only to that point where they were endeavouring to replace the laying of the scheme before Parliament with a Statutory Instrument which would be laid before Parliament, and they did not consider the procedure after that point. Would Parliament then have any opportunity to consider the scheme? It would not have that opportunity, except by an early-day Motion, which is hard enough to have debated, and it is most unlikely that one could arrange any debate through the usual channels, whereas if it is the subject of

a Prayer it is the tradition of the House that it should receive a debate.
I do not wish to press the matter any further than to put it on record in this form. We must study the Law Commission Reports as they come through to us, even after they have been considered by the Joint Select Committee, and see whether there is any way in which we can offer some improvements at this stage in a Bill. That is what I hoped I had done in this Amendment. At least we have been able to debate the recommendations of the Law Commission, even if the Solicitor-General is unable to accept the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I would wish to make it clear to the Committee that I have taken careful note of what has been said by the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member on this point, which is of some interest. In coming to the conclusion in this instance that the right course is to recommend that the Committee should reject the Amendment I have endeavoured to have every relevant factor in mind and to balance one thing with another. What has led me to the conclusion that I have reached is the aggregate of factors—first, that the Law Commission did not recommend; second, that the Joint Select Committee did not consider the point; and, third, and rather important in the spectrum, the circumstance that both the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committee recognised the extent of the objective, namely, the availability of publicity for the scheme, and that that objective is achieved by the Clause in its present form.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

USE OF CERTIFIED SAVINGS BANK BY .UNAUTHORISED PERSONS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 57, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) If any person, not being a trustee savings bank, takes or uses, in connection with any business carried on by him, the title of "savings bank certified under the Act of 1863,"


"savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954" or "savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1969", he shall be guilty of an offence.

The Chairman: With this Amendment the Committee might wish to take the following manuscript Amendment, in page 57, line 20, at end insert:
(3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Mr. Page: I was about to make that suggestion, Mr. Irving. It would be convenient to me if they could be taken together.

The Chairman: So be it.

Mr. Page: In this case I shall be able to carry the Solicitor-General with me, because I shall be using a somewhat similar argument to that which he used on the last Amendment.
12.30 a.m.
This Amendment was considered by the Law Commission and also by the Joint Select Committee. It relates to the penalties for pretending to be a trustee savings bank. In recommendation No. 20 of the report attention was called to Section 80 of the 1954 Act, which is similar to subsection (1) of Clause 92 as it appears in the Bill at present. The Law Commission pointed out that the present law penalises the shareholders of a company which pretends wrongly to be a trustee savings bank but it does not penalise the company itself or the officers of the company. It is entirely against the trend of modern legislation on this subject.
Under all fairly recent Acts over the past 20 or 30 years we have, generally speaking, inserted in statutes where it has been necessary to make some act by a company an offence, a provision that the company may be prosecuted and, not only the company, but the officers of the company who are responsible for the company carrying out the act which is an offence. We have before us in the

existing law relating to trustee savings banks a complete reversal of the modern legislative practice.
The Law Commission recommended that we insert in place of that the modern Clause. What I call the modern Clause are the two Amendments which I have read out plus subsection (2) of Clause 92 as it stands at present.
When this was put to the Joint Select Committee the evidence given to that Committee on page 20 of the report was to this effect, that the section is worded quite differently from modern Acts. The witness was referring to the existing law. He went on to say:
It has the effect that, for example, if a company which is not a trustee savings bank uses the title 'savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954' the company cannot be prosecuted, only the members of the company can be prosecuted, that is the shareholders. The directors as such cannot be prosecuted or any of the officers of the company unless they are shareholders
The Joint Select Committee seemed to consider this proposal favourably but to think that it was rather a large step for it as a Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills to take. The Chairman of the Committee said:
The question is whether we ought to make an amendment in what is primarily a consolidating procedure. It is a matter, as this is a recommendation, which can be debated in either House. I think we ought to draw attention to it.
Lord Guest said:
I am in favour of taking it out and leaving the House to put it in if it wants to.
The Chairman said:
They can always put it back, I suppose.
The Joint Select Committee, having thought that this was a good idea, as I read the report, felt that it was not for it so take such a substantial step in amending the law but that it would draw the attention of the House to it.
My Amendment would insert in the Bill exactly the recommendation which the Law Commission made, which was, in fact, printed in the first edition of the Bill as laid before another place.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad to say that the Government will accept these Amendments, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for moving them. As he said, this is the implementation of a recommendation of the Law Commission,


which makes it very agreeable to me to accept the Amendments. The hon. Gentleman has put forward the arguments compendiously and persuasively. This is recommendation No. 20 of the Commission.
I was asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) whether the table of derivations in the Bill would appear in the Act. I said that it would, but that answer has to be qualified. The loose copy of the Act will not contain the table, but it will appear in the bound volume of the Statutes.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I thank the Solicitor-General? Half a loaf is better than no bread. I am not certain about the reason for this, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell me on some future occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 57, line 20, at end insert—
(3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 93 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ROAD TRAFFIC

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1969 [draft laid before the House 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

EDUCATION (FULBRIGHT SCHEME)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for detaining you at this late hour, but I want to raise a matter which gravely worries all those teachers in schools and universities in this country who are involved in Anglo-American studies, teaching, research or scholarship, and which I believe imperils Anglo-American relations—the cuts in the funds made available to the United States—United Kingdom Educational Commission, known as the Fulbright Commission.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Minister of State, for being here, and apologise for keeping her, not least after a long day yesterday and her talk this afternoon to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. But I am concerned, as I am sure many other people are, about the cuts.
The House will not need to be reminded that the first Fulbright programme began as long ago as 1948, when, in accordance with the agreement of that year, the United States Educational Commission, as it was then called, was set up in the United Kingdom to administer American funds made available in Britain partly as a result of our war indebtedness but still more because of American generosity. We owe its inception to the imagination and good will to Senator Fulbright of Arkansas.
Since 1948 the Fulbright Commission has had at its disposal about one million dollars a year. A large number of British scholars have been enabled to visit the United States, and a large number of American scholars have come to this country. It was extremely difficult to do this before the Fulbright Commission, and it was especially difficult for school teachers to have the facilities.
That was the system until 1964, when the American Government tried to secure a foreign contribution, and bi-national Commissions were set up under the terms of an inter-Governmental agreement, Cmnd. 2697, in May, 1965. By this agreement, the British Government,


like other European Governments, agreed to supply 20 per cent. of the programme's funds in the United Kingdom.
In the last full year of this programme, 1968–69, the British contribution came to 180,000 dollars, and there was an American matching contribution of 690,000 dollars. The American Government then decided, in September-October, 1968, to cut the programme. It was already being affected by devaluation in any event.
The Commission in London was first told to expect a 30 per cent. cut and then a 60 per cent. cut. In the end, a Congressional Appropriations Sub-Committee cut funds by 80 per cent. for all the European Commissions except Finland and Ireland, with whose Governments the U.S. Government have special relations in a real sense, in Finland's case largely because of the Second World War situation. In Britain's case, that has meant a cut in the American contribution for 1969–70, the year about to begin, from 690,000 dollars to 136,000. This was against the wishes of the State Department, which then requested every European Commission to ask its Government to keep their contribution at the original 1968–69 level, rather than to cut it in proportion. I understand that no representation was made to our Government on this head. If it was, it was certainly ignored. There appears to have been no consultation with the European Governments before the cuts were announced.
In any event, the British Government cut their grant for 1969–70 by a matching 80 per cent., from 180,000 dollars to 34,000. Very few other European Governments have done this, Austria, France, Norway and Spain have continued their contribution at the old level, and Italy and Germany have increased their contributions.
The United States-United Kingdom Educational Commission has had its funds cut for the year now beginning—the year for which students and professors will already be crossing the Atlantic—from 876,000 dollars to 178,000 dollars. It has been decided for this coming year, 1969–70, to renew grants only to American scholars who are already in Britain and to contribute some travel grants for school teachers who have already made

arrangements for their salaries through other means, which means that the Commission will only be able, for the year about to begin, to maintain some 20 renewals and to contribute about 50,000 dollars for travel grants.
The main forms of assistance have been suspended altogether. In the almost 20 years there have been some 80 to 100 American postgraduate scholars in this country. This coming year and thereafter there will be none. For the last 19 or 20 years there have been some 25 to 30 visiting American professors in Britain or in the dependent territories of the Commonwealth. In the coming year and thereafter there will be none. For the last 19 or 20 years there have been 200 travel grants to United Kingdom graduate scholars and university teachers. In the coming year and thereafter there will be none.
This present attenuated programme will be the last year of the Fulbright Commission in this country. The cost of maintaining its headquarters will cost something like 50 per cent. of its revenue, and that is an impossible situation. I am in danger of becoming somewhat emotional on this subject and I should declare my interest. Before I was elected to this House I was a university teacher and an American specialist. I had a degree from Virginia before the war, and my first visit to the United States after the war was before the Fulbright programme. To do any sustained research, I had to contrive to get an American university teaching post in the summer and do my research at night or whatever other time was available.
Since 1949 there has been a whole series of scholars crossing the Atlantic without suffering these handicaps, and the advantages of the Fulbright programme hardly need specifying, but perhaps I should mention that in the 20 years thus far of the programme this country has gained immensely.
The American Government have contributed to the programme almost £6 million—to be precise, £5,915,175. Since 1965, when our own contributions began, we have contributed £252,000. In other words, it has been a one-to-24 relationship and obviously to our advantage. In the same nearly 20 years, 5,436 American students or teachers or professors have


come to this country, while 6,867 British postgraduates or lecturers or professors have gone to the United States.
I stress that this is a programme which particularly affects junior staff and postgraduate students. Full professors, to use American phraseology, do not need this sort of assistance. People who hold chairs can go to the United States usually by invitation. The programme is hurting the coming generation of scholars. Moreover, universities will be seriously affected by the absence of these visiting teachers and scholars, and the British Association for American Studies, of which I was, until two years ago, the chairman, will find its work handicapped. The association originally came into being very largely because of the Fulbright proposals
The hon. Lady herself knows American universities very well, and I am sure that she will appreciate that this serious cut is coming at a time when there have been signs of alarm in some of the Foundations. A year ago, there was a serious proposal to cut the Harkness awards, which have been running for some 45 years. The Minister may well be aware of the efforts to persuade the Harkness Foundation to maintain these awards. This is a time when programme of international understanding among young people are probably more urgent than they ever have been, with issues like Biafra, Vietnam and race prominent in our minds.
The cuts have occasioned great alarm in the. United States. I will not dwell on that, because it would probably not be appropriate for me to do so. I have no right to comment on the reasons why the American Government made these cuts, although I am bound to say that I deplore what seem to be their consequences. But the point I want to put to the Minister is fundamental.
Communication is the life blood of all scholars, and we have been discussing another form of communication today. But the ability to cross the Atlantic has become one of the great features of the last 20 years. It is simply no longer possible for scholars on this scale to do this by reying on private foundations, although I would want to salute the Harkness Foundation—I was a Harkness scholar originally—and those individuals like

John Thouron of Pennsylvania, who was born in Scotland but who now lives in Philadelphia, who have been generous in establishing the Thouron Foundation for the mutual exchange of British and American students.
But educational cultural exchanges are now matters overwhelmingly for Governments. Indeed, they are instruments of National policy and I do not think that we need ask people to go back to the chance provided by philanthropy. Indeed, in a period when we have the Marshall scholarships and the Kennedy scholarships the message is the other way.
The point I want to make is that Britain has acted in this matter out of line with other European Governments, and I cannot think that in a period when it is important to maintain and foster scholar exchange our own Government should be as parsimonious, as niggardly and as mean as they seem to be proving to be.
I accept that Governments cannot create scholarship, but they can foster it. If there were more time I could list some of the individuals who have been of great value to both countries. There are some projects in physiology and heart disease which are now dependent on the steady traffic of people across the Atlantic.
In cutting the Fulbright grant, the Government are hiding behind the form of words of the agreement, the four-to-one matching clause in the agreement. Other Governments in Europe have not acted in this way. The sum concerned is about £50,000 a year. The date is late.
I repeat that unless we act soon, unless there is a sign on the part of Congress —a Bill is corning from the Representative from California before the American Congress on this point—the programme, already emaciated for next year, will disappear altogether. I am asking the Government to have second thoughts. I ask them to be as generous as the Governments of Italy, Germany and France, and to try to be as imaginative and as generous as Senator Fulbright was when he had this great and imaginative idea 21 years ago.

12.54 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I suppose that I may say that I share some of the emotion on this


subject which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) has, for although, unlike him, I was not a Harkness scholar, I was a Fulbright scholar and I therefore owe a great deal to the Fulbright Fund which made it possible for me to spend a post-graduate year in the United States, for which I shall be eternally grateful.
Perhaps I should start by indicating precisely what the agreement covered, because there was one element in the hon. Gentleman's speech which may have tended to mislead the House. From the British point of view, the Fulbright scheme has always been essentially a method of assisting with travel grants and not a method of assisting with fees and accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's reference to teacher exchanges should not lead one to assume any change in the arrangements. They have always been applied exclusively to travel grants, with the authorities meeting the cost of salaries.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the division of the Fulbright Commission since 1965—before that date the entire cost was borne by the United States—has been 80 per cent.—20 per cent., on the suggestion of the United States and on the basis of a clause drafted by the American State Department as between the United States and this country.
It is fair to add—the hon. Gentleman said so much about what is in the Fulbright scheme that there is no need for me to repeat the facts—that one point should be remembered, that this division has been closely adhered to in terms of the value of, as distinct from the number of, scholarships awarded. For example, under last year's budget—that is, the one that has now been cut —the total expenditure that would have been spent on United States scholars and academics was about £¼ million, with £52,000 being spent on British scholars travelling to America. This is closely in line with the division of contributions as between the two countries.
That is not to say that there should be a precise balance. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that the scheme should be run in this way. It is simply to underline the fact that the per capita expenditure on British scholars has in all cases been rather different from the per capita expenditure on American scholars

and senior academics. I mention this because the hon. Gentleman quoted the figures of people involved and because it is reasonable to also quote the indications of per capita grants.
We in Her Majesty's Government share the hon. Gentleman's feeling of concern about the major cut in the programme of the Fulbright Commission. I shall come to what he said about what we should do, but first it may help if I comment on the nature of the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman will find applies to other countries in different ways from the way it applies to us.
For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Federal Republic of Germany. He may be interested to know that last year the balance of contributions by the Federal Republic and the United States was rather less than one-to-ten, the reason being that the Federal Republic had held over funds for use in a later year. This, while not reflecting on the generosity of the Federal Republic, puts the comparative figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70 in a different light.
It is true that as a result of the substantial reductions in expenditure made by the American Government, and in particular by Congress, the position is that the United States contribution as from 1st April 1969 will be 136,000 dollars, and, on a ratio basis, this makes the British contribution about 34,000 dollars, the total being 170,000 dollars.
The effect of this is serious. It means the ending of new scholarships to American scholars in this country and the ending of senior academic arrangements, a point of great importance. I appreciate what has been said about the opportunities for senior academics, and there can be no doubt that those who come under the Fulbright scheme form a valuable part of the exchange.
What fundamentally survives on the reduced budget is, first, the extension of scholarships here to American students and, second, the teacher exchange. Despite the major cuts in the programme, I wish to make it clear that we are extremely grateful to the Commission for its decision to maintain the exchange of teachers, since great personal hardship would have been created had there suddenly been a decision to stop it.
We are very much aware of the financial problems which the United


States face at this time and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their action. Nor would I wish to do so. It is fair to say that we are, after all, a Government who know what it is to face financial squeezes. While it would not be appropriate for me to lecture the American Government on this front, I might point out that there is more than one Government in the world who face financial difficulties of one sort or another.
I should like to make two points. One is that in the Department of Education and Science we are now considering bearing the cost of the teacher exchange arrangements—that is, the travel costs—from our own funds in a future year. I wish that I could say that this was definite—I cannot yet say so—but I would like to give the hon. Member at least the assurance that this is being closely looked at, because it is an essential part of the programme.
Second, we believe that there might be possibilities of savings in administration. The hon. Member mentioned the point about administration, which is now one-third of the total programme. He will know, because he mentioned the Harkness scheme, that a similar scheme, the Marshall scheme, is administered at little cost to the scheme by the Association of Commonwealth Universities. It might be appropriate for the balance of Fulbright to be administered in the same wary.
I do not want anything that I have said to lead the hon. Member to assume that it will not be possible for the Fulbright arrangement to be reviewed and, indeed, perhaps increased, but this is subject not only to a renegotiation of the agreement but to renegotiation of the balance of awards under it. This is a crucial element in the whole which does not apply in quite the same way to other countries.
The Fulbright scheme has unquestionably been of the greatest possible value,

particularly in the years immediately after the war, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member's tribute to Senator Fulbright, who has always been a luminary on the whole American Congressional scene. I do not think that the position is quite as desperate as the hon. Member suggested. All the figures suggest that the exchanges between the United States and Britain have increased rapidly in the last few years.
To quote only one figure, we estimate that in 1964 there were 816 American postgraduate students in British universities. In 1967, only three years later, the figure had gone up to 1,272, an increase of more than 50 per cent. There is reason to believe, although I cannot give later figures, that there has been a further increase in the academic year 1968–69. Again, there is reason to believe that the number of academic exchanges of senior people has shown a similar increase. The figures that the United States Embassy provides suggest a similar rate of increase —of the order of 50 per cent., or probably rather more—in the number of British postgraduate students attending American institutions.
Therefore, although it is true that the Government would not 'wish to see the Fulbright programme disappear, and although we will certainly give due consideration to the possibility of being able to renegotiate the agreement and, indeed, to expanding the programme, I want to make it clear that there is now a much more massive exchange between the United States and Britain at the postgraduate, academic and post-doctorial levels than was the case when the Fulbright programme started. Therefore, I can at least reassure the hon. Member that there is reason to believe that the flow across the Atlantic, valuable as it is to both countries, has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.